Kamlesh Kumar vs C.P.W.D on 21 July 2026

1. The Director General of Works, CPWD, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi.

2. The Executive Engineer, President Estates Electrical Division, CPWD, Rasthrapati Bhawan, New Delhi.

Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: Sh. Satish Sharma, Ld. AR

For Management/ Respondent: Sh. Atul Bhardwaj, Ld. AR

AWARD 21.07.2026

1. This is an application filed by the workman under section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as “the Act”). Claimant in his claim statement stated that he was appointed as “Wireman” through contractor on 01.04.2006 by the Department of CPWD for day to day maintenance work of wireman at Retreat Building, Masobra, Shimla. His services were terminated w.e.f. 01.04.2012 without giving any notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation etc. Contractors were

changed from time to time by the management of CPWD, but, he was continuously working and has completed 240 days regular service in each calendar year. Neither the management of CPWD nor the contractors engaged for hiring his services had paid minimum wages to him, even though, he was legally entitled for regular pay scale of post of Wireman as he was discharging the duties at par with regular Wireman. He had filed representation/application to the principal employer i.e. the Executive Engineer, President Estates Electrical Division, CPWD, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi and requested for reinstatement and regularization of his services, but, nothing has been happened. Thereafter, he had approached the conciliation, but, it was resulted into failure. Hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer that he be reinstated with full back wages. He had also made prayer that an award for regularization of his service be also passed.

2. Management had filed the written statement. He took the preliminary objections stating that the present claim is bad in law, without application of mind and has been sent in a stereotype manner; claim is bad for non- joinder of parties as the different contractors who are employer of the workmen have not been made party. There exist no relationship of employer and employee relationship. On merit, he submitted that CPWD is a Government of India department and maintain & construct buildings & roads for Government of India through its contractors by an open tender procedure. It is further submitted that management has well defined procedure for call of tenders and hundreds of contractors are working for the answering department. These agencies employ thousands of employees for the work. Management has called many tenders for different works and eligible contractors quote their rates. Tenders are awarded after scrutinizing their technical and financial credibility. Genuine parties are selected for the genuine agreements. In overall, he submitted that claimant was the employee of the contractor i.e. M/s. Bhardwaj Hardware & Electrical Store and these allowances were provided by the contractor only. Hence, he submitted that claim is liable to be dismissed.

3. Claimant has filed the rejoinder. He has denied the averments made in the management’s written statement and affirmed the facts mentioned in his claim.

4. After completion of the pleadings, vide order dated 09.08.2016, following issues have been framed i.e.:

(i) Whether there exist employee and employer relationship between workman and management no. 1? If so its effect?

(ii) Whether the contract system in this case is sham & camouflage? If so its effect?

(iii) Whether claim is barred by time? If so its effect?

(iv) Whether workman Sh. Kamlesh Kumar, is entitled to reinstatement in his service with full back wages since his alleged illegal termination? If so its effect?

(v) Whether workman is entitled for regularization in his service w.e.f. the date of his initial date of appointment and to receive the regular pay of allowances at par with other regular employees in CPWD? If so its effect?

5. Workman has led evidence by examining himself in the witness box. He has reiterated the facts as mentioned by him in his claim statement that he has been working as “Wireman” on daily wages w.e.f. 01.04.2006 with the respondent. He submitted that his job was permanent in nature through contractor and his services were terminated on 01.04.2012. He had relied upon the several documents i.e. Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/17.

6. Workman was put to the test of cross-examination, where he had admitted that he has been working for CPWD through a contractor and the name of the contractor is M/s. Bhardwaj Hardware & Electrical Store. He denied that he was getting his salary and other financial benefits from the contractor. Before his termination he was not a subscriber of PF or EPF. He was getting his wage in cash from the J.E. He denied that he was getting his wage from the contractor by way of bank deposit. He denied that on 01.04.2012, a new contractor was inducted in CPWD and he refused to retain him as a result of which he lost his job.

7. In rebuttal, management has examined one K.Y. Singh, Executive Engineer (Electrical). He had also reiterated the facts as mentioned in respondent’s written statement, denying the employer-employee

relationship between the management and the claimant. He has relied upon only one document i.e. contract agreement and schedule of work.

8. The witness was put to the test of cross-examination where he admitted that order of engagement of the contractors are being passed by the Delhi Divisional office, though, the claimant was working in the property of Rastrapati Bhawan at Shimla. He cannot say if all the contractors engaged by CPWD between 2006 to 2012 had the license under the CLRA for engagement of contract labour. He admitted that as per general condition enumerated in the document marked as Ex. WW1/6, it has clearly been mentioned that the contractor shall possess the license under CLRA and shall also maintain all the records and registers required under law and also mentioned that all the payment to the contractors shall be made in presence of the J.E., who will issue voucher for the same. He cannot say, if the appropriate government had made a gazette notification dated 31.07.2002 for abolition of contract labour in respect of the work done by different category of persons including the post of wireman. He also did not know, if after the gazette notification, the director general of CPWD had issued instruction to us for implementing the gazette notification dated 31.07.2002. He further submitted that he cannot say if pursuant to the letter dated 01.09.1992 (WW1/10), government has sanctioned 8982 posts including the post of wireman for regularization of daily rated workers as a consequence of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

9. Whole of the case of the workman rests upon the fact that he was appointed as “Wireman” through contractor in 2006 by the Department of CPWD for day to day maintenance work of wireman at Retreat Building, Masobra, Shimla and his services were terminated w.e.f. 01.04.2012 without giving any notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation etc. Contractors had been coming and going, but, he had been there. While the respondent stand is that there is no relationship between employer and employee between them. CPWD is a Government of India department and maintain & construct buildings & roads for Government of India through its contractors by an open tender

procedure. He submitted that the claimant was the employee of the contractor i.e M/s. Bhardwaj Hardware & Electrical Store.

10. In the light of the above argument and evidence, my issue wise findings are as follow:

Issues

For the sake of convenience, the issue no. 3 is taken first because it shall be the preliminary issue as claim is barred by time. It is the application filed by the workman under section 2A of the Act. It is admitted fact that workman himself stated that he was appointed on 01.04.2006 and his services were terminated on 01.04.2012 by the management without giving any notice, notice pay and retrenchment. The claim has been filed admittedly on 02.11.2015.

Before we proceed further, it is necessary to produce the text of section 2A:

“2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.- [(1)] where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches, or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute not withstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

Not withstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the

dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this act and all the provisions of this act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1). Section 2A has been inserted in 1967, where individual case of the discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of services is deemed to be an Industrial Dispute. Earlier, every industrial dispute should be sponsored by a trade union or a substantial number of workmen. Before 2010, the only way to resolve such individual disputes was through a reference made by the appropriate government. In 2010, 2A was further amended and 2A(2) and 2A(3) were inserted. Original provision has been given the number 2A.

However, what is required is that a workman who has been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or terminated as specified in sub-section (1) of section 2A can make an application directly to Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of his individual dispute after the expiry of 45 days from the date he has made an application to the conciliation officer of the appropriate government for conciliation of the dispute. Sub-section (3) of section 2A lay down the time limit for making such application to the Labour Court or Tribunal. It provides that such application to Labour Court or tribunal shall be made before expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of services as specified in sub-

section-1. This right is available to the workman without affecting the remedy available under section 10 of the Act.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh in the matters of Balwan Singh and Ors. Vs. Sahara India Parivar and Ors., W.P. (C) 4357/2013 and Sh. Lal Chand Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and Ors., CWP No. 3058/2023, wherein it has been stated that the case is barred by limitation as set out in clause 3 of section 2-A of Act. The provision of the Section 2A(3) of the Act is mandatory.

It is the remedy granted by the legislature to an individual workman for approaching directly to the Tribunal without sponsoring their claim. This remedy is totally different with the remedy under section 10(1)(C) of the Act. Section 10 (1) of the Act enables the appropriate government to make reference of an industrial dispute which exists or is apprehended at any time to one of the authorities mentioned in the section. How and in what manner or through what machinery, the government is apprised of the dispute is hardly relevant. The only requirement of taking action U/s 10 (1) is that there must be some material before the government which will enable the appropriate government to form an opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. The case in hand is not referred by the appropriate government by making the reference to this tribunal. Section 2A(3) of the Act set out the limitation for approaching Labour Court or tribunal directly after expiry of 45 days of approaching the conciliation officer in respect of their termination, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal of the services.

Here admittedly, workman services have been terminated on 01.04.2012 and he has filed the claim under section 2A on 02.11.2015. Therefore, his claim is time barred as it has not been filed within three years for the date of his termination. Hence, issue no. 3 goes in favour of the management and against the workman.

Issues no. 2, 4 & 5 are not the relevant issues in the present case. The case of the workman is not that the arrangement of contract system is sham and

camouflage. Workman has filed the claim herein against the CPWD only, he had not filed any claim against the contractor, so, no question arises of the contractor being sham and camouflage between the principle employer and contractor.

In view of the claim filed under section 2A, issue no. 5 is also not relevant because it is not the case for regularisation in the services from the date of initial appointment. His case is only for reinstatement with the back wages.

So far so, the issue no. 1 is concerned. Workman has admitted that he was appointed by contractor i.e. M/s. Bhardwaj Hardware & Electrical Store and contractor has not been made the party by the claimant, therefore, this issue has no relevance. In view of the finding of above said issues, workman is not entitled for reinstatement in services with full back wages. Hence his claim stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the Act. The file is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG Date: 21.07.2026

Presiding Officer.

CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II