{"id":90051,"date":"2002-05-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002"},"modified":"2016-05-02T21:02:50","modified_gmt":"2016-05-02T15:32:50","slug":"union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shri O.P. Singla And Anr. on 1 May, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shri O.P. Singla And Anr. on 1 May, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: A Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
A.K. Sikri, J.<\/p>\n
1. The  petitioner is Union of India.  Respondent
\n           No.2  Shri Surender Prasad (hereinafter to be  referred
\n           as  “workman”) was employed in the departmental canteen
\n           of  Ministry of Works and Housing (hereinafter referred
\n           to  as  “the  Management”) as Assistant  Manager.   His
\n           services  were  terminated  by orders  dated  26.4.1980
\n           which  was  an order of termination  simpliciter.   The
\n           workman  feeling aggrieved by this order of termination
\n           raised Industrial Disputes by invoking the machinery of
\n           Conciliation   under   the   Industrial  Disputes   Act
\n           (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’).  The Management
\n           was  summoned.   Conciliation proceedings  started  but:   <\/p>\n
\n                                      \n\n CWP.No.248\/85   \n\n\n\n \n\n            ended      in       failure.       Thereafter,       on\n<\/pre>\n
           consideration  of  the  failure   report  submitted  by
\n           Conciliation  Officer,  Central  Government  being  the
\n           appropriate  Government  made   Reference  Order  dated
\n           21.5.1981 referring the dispute for adjudication of the
\n           Central   Government  Industrial   Tribunal  with   the
\n           following terms of reference:\n<\/p>\n
                        “Whether  the  action  of  the  Chairman,
\n                      Departmental  Canteen, Ministry of  Works
\n                      and  Housing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi in
\n                      terminating the services of Shri Surinder
\n                      Pershad,  Assistant Manager, with  effect
\n                      from  26.4.1980  is legal and  justified?
\n                      If  not,  to what relief the  workman  is
\n                      entitled?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 2.                    It was registered as I.D.No.68\/81.\n<\/p>\n
                    The  case  of the workman before the  Tribunal
\n           was  that  he  was regular,  permanent  employee.   The
\n           action  of  termination  was preceded  by  issuance  of
\n           charge-sheet  but  no  enquiry  was  held  and  instead
\n           termination  order dated 26.4.1980 was passed.  It  was
\n           also  stated that it was a mala fide action as  workman
\n           had taken part in union activities as he was Organising
\n           Secretary  of  the  All  India  Canteen  Mazdoor  Sabha
\n           (Registered).\n<\/p>\n
3. The  Management contested the claim by  filing
\n           written   statement  raising   number  of   preliminary
\n           objections  which included:\n<\/p>\n
                     (1)  the  workman was a holder of  civil  post
\n           and, therefore, he could not raise industrial dispute, <\/p>\n
                     (2)  the Management i.e.  Departmental Canteen
\n           was  not  an `industry’ within the meaning  of  Section
\n           2(j) of the Act, <\/p>\n
                     (3) He was a purely temporary employee and his
\n           services  were validly terminated under CCS  (Temporary
\n           Services) Rules,1965, <\/p>\n
                     (4)  Shri  Surender Prasad was  not  `workman’
\n           under  Section  2(s)  of the Act as  he  was  Assistant
\n           Manager performing managerial duties.\n<\/p>\n
4. On  merits,  it was sought to be  pointed  out
\n           that  the  termination  was  on  account  of  generally
\n           unsatisfactory performance of duties by the workman and
\n           on  account  of  mis-behavior   with  the   Hony.Joint
\n           Secretary  of the Departmental Canteen and that he also
\n           instigated  certain  persons to join other  persons  in
\n           physically  assaulting  him  on 17.3.1980  and  raising
\n           slogans and using abusive language against the Chairman
\n           of  the  Departmental  Canteen  but  the  action  taken
\n           against  him was not by way of disciplinary action  but
\n           simply  termination of service of a temporary  employee
\n           under the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
  On  the  basis  of the  pleadings,  Industrial
\n           Tribunal framed the following issues:\n<\/p>\n
                     1.   As per terms of reference.\n<\/p>\n
 2.   Whether the claimant is not a workman?~
\n                    The  parties led their evidence and argued the
\n           case   where after  the   Industrial  Tribunal  rendered
\n           impugned Award dated 10.10.1984.\n<\/p>\n
  Relying  upon the judgment of the Constitution
\n           Bench  of  the Supreme Court in the case  of  Bangalore
\n           Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs.  A.Rajappa   the  Tribunal  held  that  the
\n           Management was `Industry’ within the meaning of Section
\n           2(j)  of  the Act as the triple test laid down  in  the
\n           said  judgment stood satisfied.  The contention of  the
\n           Management   to  the  effect   that  the  canteen   was
\n           discharging  sovereign  function   was  brushed  aside.
\n           Thereafter  the learned Tribunal examined the duties of
\n           the claimant Shri Surender Prasad on the basis of which
\n           it  recorded  the finding to the effect that he  was  a
\n           `workman’  covered by the definition under Section 2(s)
\n           of  the Act.  The relevant discussion to this effect is
\n           in para-11 of the Award which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                      “11. The  claimant  Surinder Pershad,  in  his
\n                         affidavit  in  para 6, clearly  mentioned
\n                         that his duties were to keep accounts and
\n                         to deal with other affairs of the canteen
\n                         and, when some person was not on duty, he
\n                         was  performing duty of such a person  in
\n                         his  absence  and was also assisting  the
\n                         staff  at  the time of rush to meet  with
\n                         the  situation.   He is not shown by  the
\n                         Management   to  have    any   managerial
\n                         functions  like  allocation  of  work  to
\n                         other employees in the canteen and taking
\n                         disciplinary action against them.  At the
\n                         most,   he   could  be   said   to   have
\n                         supervisory   functions,    but   because
\n                         emoluments  were  only  Rs.341\/-p.m.   he
\n                         remain   within   the    definitions   of
\n                         `workman’  given  in Section 2(s) of  the
\n                         I.D.  Act,1947”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  5.  The Tribunal also did not find favor with the
\n           contention  of  the Management that simply because  the
\n           workman  was  holder of civil post and governed by  CCS
\n           (Temporary  Services) Rules,1965, the provisions of the
\n           Act  would  not apply.  Thereafter the  Tribunal  after
\n           discussing   the  relevant   Rules  and   Notifications
\n           (reference  to  which would be made at the  appropriate
\n           stage)  came to the conclusion that on promotion of the
\n           workman   as   Assistant   Manager  w.e.f.1.2.1979   on
\n           probation  for three months extendable by another three
\n           months,  the  workman  would  be deemed  to  have  been
\n           confirmed  as  Assistant Manager in regular service  as
\n           per  the  Rules  after the expiry of six  months.   The
\n           Tribunal  also  held that the foundation of  the  order
\n           unmistakably  was  misconduct of the employee, and  not
\n           merely  a motive for his discharge and therefore in any
\n           case  the  termination  of  his  service  was  invalid.
\n           Resultantly  the Tribunal granted the workman relief of
\n           reinstatement  with full back wages and continuation of
\n           service.\n<\/p>\n
6. The   learned  counsel   for  the   petitioner
\n           reiterated  same  very  submissions which  were  raised
\n           before  the  learned Tribunal.  In the first place,  it
\n           was  the  argument  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the
\n           petitioner  that  Departmental  Canteen   run  by   the
\n           Ministry  of  Works and Housing was held to be  outside
\n           the  term of Industry vide notification dated 12.1.1982
\n           and therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass
\n           impugned  award.   In any case it was argued  that  the
\n           workman  was  governed by CCS(Temporary  Services)Rules
\n           and,  therefore, he could not invoke the provisions  of
\n           the Act.  Further since he was not a workman within the
\n           meaning  of Section 2(s) of the Act, he could not raise
\n           the  Industrial  Dispute  and  that   since  he  was  a
\n           temporary  employee  his services could  be  terminated
\n           under  Rule-5 of the Temporary Service Rules by way  of
\n           termination  simplicitor  and the termination  was  not
\n           stigmatic.\n<\/p>\n
7. Insofar as the issue of Industry is concerned,
\n           heavy  reliance  is  placed   upon  Notification  dated
\n           12.1.1982   and  particularly   the  following  portion
\n           thereof was pressed into service:\n<\/p>\n
  “…..who  have  since  been  treated  as
\n                      holders  of civil posts under Article 309
\n                      of  the  Constitution vide GSR  54  dated
\n                      17.01.1981,  and  it has been decided  in
\n                      consultation  with  the Ministry  of  Law
\n                      that  the canteens run departmentally  in
\n                      Central  Government  Offices   could   be
\n                      regarded  as excluded from the definition
\n                      of  `industry’ under Section 2(i) of  the
\n                      Industrial  Disputes  Act.  As  such  the
\n                      employees  of  such canteens do not  come
\n                      under  the purview of Industrial Disputes
\n                      Act-1947.   Ministry of Agriculture  etc.
\n                      may  kindly see and circulate to  offices
\n                      under their administrative control”.\n<\/p>\n
   8.                  However,  this  would be of no consequence  as
\n           whether  the  Management  is Industry or not is  to  be
\n           determined  on  the basis of interpretation of  Section
\n           2(j)  of  the Act as interpreted by the  Supreme  Court
\n           which  is law under Article 141 of the Constitution  of
\n           India.\n<\/p>\n
9. The seven Judge judgment of the Supreme Court
\n           in  the  case  of Bangalore Water Supply  and  Sewerage
\n           Board  Vs.   A.Rajappa (supra) still holds  the  field.
\n           The  Tribunal  has rightly held that triple  test  laid
\n           down  in the said judgment applies to this Departmental
\n           Canteen also.  Merely because the Canteen employees run
\n           departmentally   in  Central   Government  Offices  are
\n           treated  as  holders  of   civil  posts,   Departmental
\n           Canteens  could not be excluded from the definition  of
\n           Industry.   The aforesaid Notification dated  12.1.1982
\n           is  thus  contrary to the dicta laid down in  Bangalore
\n           Water  Supply  case  (supra)  and,  therefore,  is  not
\n           binding on the Courts.\n<\/p>\n
10. The  learned  counsel for the petitioner  also
\n           placed reliance in the case of Bombay Telephone Canteen
\n           Employees Association, Prabhadevi Exchange Versus Union
\n           of  India  &  Others   wherein  Bombay
\n           Telephone  Canteen Employees Association was held to be
\n           not  Industry within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the
\n           Act.   However, the said judgment has been specifically
\n           overruled  by  the  Supreme  Court   in  the  case   of
\n           G.M.Telephone  Vs.   A.  Srinivas Rao 1998 SCC (L&S)  6
\n           wherein  the  Supreme  Court   held  that  decision  in
\n           aforesaid  case  was in direct conflict with  Bangalore
\n           Water Supply case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
11.  The  argument  of the learned counsel  to  the
\n           effect  that  predominant activities of the  petitioner
\n           are  sovereign and the canteen is only highly micro part
\n           of the said activity is also devoid of any merit and is
\n           highly  misconceived.   In Bangalore Water Supply  case
\n           (supra) the Supreme Court has laid down the test in the
\n           following words:\n<\/p>\n
                       “140.   `Industry’, as defined in Section
\n                      2(j)  and  explained in Banerji  (supra),
\n                      has a wide import.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       (a)  Where (i) systematic activity,  (ii)
\n                      organized   by     co-operation   between
\n                      employer  and  employee (the  direct  and
\n                      substantial  element is chimerical) (iii)
\n                      for the production and\/or distribution of
\n                      goods  and services calculated to satisfy
\n                      human  wants and wishes (not spiritual or
\n                      religious  but  inclusive   of   material
\n                      things  or  services gearer to  celestial
\n                      bliss  e.g.   making,  on a  large  scale
\n                      prasad or food), prima facie, there is an
\n                      `industry’ in that enterprise.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 (b)  Absence of profit motive or  gainful
\n                      objective  is irrelevant, be the  venture
\n                      in  the  public, joint, private or  other
\n                      sector.\n<\/p>\n
 (c)  The true focus is functional and the
\n                      decisive  test  is  the   nature  of  the
\n                      activity  with  special emphasis  on  the
\n                      employer-employee relations.\n<\/p>\n
 (d)  If  the organisation is a  trade  or
\n                      business  it  does  not cease to  be  one
\n                      because  of  philanthropy  animating  the
\n                      undertaking”.\n<\/p>\n
    12.                 In any case this argument of the petitioner is
\n           based on Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees Association
\n           (supra) which has been specifically overruled.\n<\/p>\n
 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid position in law,
\n           the  irresistible  conclusion  is that  the  Management
\n           would  be `Industry’ within the meaning of Section 2(j)
\n           of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
14. The  argument of the Management to the  effect
\n           that  Shri Surender Prasad was not a workman is equally
\n           misconceived.   The main thrust of the argument is that
\n           he  was discharging managerial duties and, therefore, a
\n           person  who is discharging managerial duties would  not
\n           be  treated as workman.  In support reliance is  placed
\n           upon the following judgments:\n<\/p>\n
    The  Management of M\/s.   Statesman  Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
           New Delhi Vs.  Lt.  Governor, Delhi and others 1975 Lab          IC 543.\n<\/p>\n
                     “….Section   2(s)   expressly  excludes
\n                      managerial or administrative officers and
\n                      also  would  not  apply  to  literary  or
\n                      intellectual workers.”  <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  2.   P.A.S.   Press,   Madras  Vs.   Presiding
\n           Officer,  Labour Court Madras and another .
\n   “….whether  an employee is a workman or
\n                      comes  within the exception (iii) or (iv)
\n                      of  Section  2(s)  depends   not  on  his
\n                      designation  but  on the exact nature  of
\n                      duties and functions for which he is paid
\n                      remuneration.”\n<\/p>\n
                  3.   Andhra Scientific Co.Ltd.  Masulipatam by
\n           the General Manager Vs.  A Seshagiri Rao represented by
\n           Andhra  Scientific  Co.  Employees’ Union,  Masulipatam
\n           and another .\n<\/p>\n
                     “….Decisive test is nature of work done
\n                      by person and not his designation.” <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  4.    C.Narayana  Reddy   Vs.   Management  of
\n           Ajantha  Theatre  and  another   1994  Lab  I.C.   2634
\n           (Karnataka).\n<\/p>\n
                     “…If  a  person is appointed mainly  in
\n                      managerial  or  supervisory  capacity  he
\n                      cannot  be said to be workman and  salary
\n                      drawn  by  him is of no  consequence  for
\n                      purpose  of  determining whether he is  a
\n                      workman or not”. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  5.  Ramendra Narayan Deb.  Vs.  8th Industrial
\n           Tribunal, West Bengal and others 1975 Lab IC 94 (Cal).\n<\/p>\n
                      “….The  determining factor in  deciding
\n                      whether  a  person  is  a  workman  or  a
\n                      supervisor  is the principal or main work
\n                      he  is required to do in his  employment.
\n                      The  principal nature of his work can  be
\n                      determined    from    the    letter    of
\n                      appointment, the nature of his duties and
\n                      other attending circumstances”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  6.   1994 Lab IC (NOC) 216 Kerala.
\n                     “….Employee  performing    multifarious
\n                      duties  –  Dominant work of employee  was
\n                      supervisory  in  character – He is not  a
\n                      workman”.  <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  However,  whether  a   person  is  discharging
\n           managerial  or supervisory duties would depend upon the
\n           nature   of   duties  being   performed  and  not   the
\n           nomenclature   attached  to  a  post.   Therefore,  the
\n           submission  of  the petitioner that he is described  as
\n           Assistant  Manager  or that he is No.2 from the top  in
\n           hierarchy of appointed employees as would be clear from
\n           the  Office Order No.71\/80 dated 27.2.1980 would be  of
\n           no  consequence.   The petitioner has not at all  cited
\n           anything  on  record to prove that he  was  discharging
\n           managerial or supervisory duties.  On the other hand as
\n           is  clear from para-11 of the Award quoted above,  Shri
\n           Surender  Prasad  had categorically stated his  duties,
\n           namely,  to keep accounts to to deal with other affairs
\n           of  the canteen when some person was not on duty.  With
\n           regard  to  alleged duties the only support  which  the
\n           learned  counsel for the Management tried to get was an
\n           affidavit  of  Shri  Surender Prasad filed  before  the
\n           learned  Tribunal wherein in para-3 he objected to  the
\n           alleged  going  out  of  office of  one  employee  Shri
\n           Chanderkanta  without  taking   his  permission.   This
\n           solitary  instance  even if admitted would at the  most
\n           make  his duties as supervisory.  However, since he was
\n           drawing  the salary of Rs.341\/-P.M.  which is less than
\n           Rs.1650\/-PM  even  if  he was  discharging  supervisory
\n           function he would still be a workman under Section 2(s)
\n           of the Act.  All the judgments cited by the petitioner,
\n           therefore,   are  not  applicable  to  the  facts   and
\n           circumstances  of the present case as the Management is
\n           not  able to prove on record that Shri Surender  Prasad
\n           was discharging managerial duties.\n<\/p>\n
 There  was  much  debate  as  to  whether  the
\n           workman  stood  confirmed  and was,  therefore,  to  be
\n           treated as regular employee or he was still a temporary
\n           employee   governed   by    CCS   (Temporary   Service)
\n           Rules,1965.   His  services  are terminated  under  CCS
\n           (Temporary  Service) Rules and without holding enquiry.
\n           Therefore, if he was to be treated as regular employee,
\n           termination would be illegal on this score itself.\n<\/p>\n
 As  pointed  out above the Tribunal  has  held
\n           that  he was deemed to have become regular employee and
\n           for  this  purpose  the Tribunal had relied  upon  Open
\n           Departmental   Canteen  Employees    (Recruitment   and
\n           Conditions  of  Service)  Rules,1980   which  had  been
\n           enacted  under Article 309 of the Constitution of India
\n           and  although  promulgated  on   23.12.1980  were  made
\n           effective retrospectively i.e.  from 1.10.1979.  On the
\n           other  hand,  the case of the petitioner was that  when
\n           the   services  of  the   workman  were  terminated  on
\n           26.4.1980  these  Rules had been promulgated for  which
\n           notification  was  issued  only   on  23.12.1980   and,
\n           therefore, these Rules did not apply in the case of the
\n           workman.   The  argument of the workman was that  these
\n           Rules  came  into  force retrospectively  i.e.   w.e.f.
\n           1.10.1979  and,  therefore, would be applicable in  his
\n           case when his services were terminated on 26.4.1980.\n<\/p>\n
  To  my  mind,  learned  Tribunal  has  rightly
\n           decided  the  issue.   When  it is  competent  for  the
\n           President  to  promulgate  the  rules  with  retrospect
\n           effect, which was done in the present case, there is no
\n           reason  to  deny  that Rules did not come  into  effect
\n           w.e.f.   1.10.79 even when the Notification was  issued
\n           on   23.12.1980.   It  may  be  mentioned   that   vide
\n           Notification  dated 11.12.1979 all posts in the Canteen
\n           and  Tiffins  run departmentally by the  Government  of
\n           India  were  treated as civil posts w.e.f.   1.10.1979.
\n           Even  while  issuing this Notification, it was  clearly
\n           stipulated therein:\n<\/p>\n
                     “necessary    rules     governing   their
\n                      conditions  of  service  will  be  framed
\n                      under  proviso  to  Article  309  of  the
\n                      Constitution  to  have retrospect  effect
\n                      from the first day of 1979”\n<\/p>\n
    15.              Thus  the  canteen employees were  treated  as
\n           holders   of   civil  posts    w.e.f.    1.10.1979   by
\n           Notification  dated 11.12.1979 and for that reason even
\n           the Notification dated 23.12.1980 framing the rules was
\n           given  effect from 1.10.1979.  The legal effect thereof
\n           would  be that the Rules were enforced as on  1.10.1979
\n           and  as the workman was in service on that date,  these
\n           Rules  would squarely be applicable in this case.  Thus
\n           if  as per these Rules the petitioner had  successfully
\n           completed  the  probation period and even  the  maximum
\n           probation  period in September,1979, he would be deemed
\n           as  regular  employee  and, therefore,  the  petitioner
\n           could  not  resort  to Temporary  Service  Rules.   The
\n           termination  of  a regular employee without holding  an
\n           enquiry  would  be illegal on this count as well.   The
\n           Tribunal  has  also held that even if the  workman  was
\n           governed  by CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, termination
\n           is  stigmatic and therefore illegal.  However, as it is
\n           held  that the workman had become a permanent  employee
\n           and,  therefore, provisions of CCS (Temporary  Service)
\n           Rules  could not be resorted to, it is not necessary to
\n           go into this question.\n<\/p>\n
16.  The  net effect of the aforesaid discussion is
\n           that the Tribunal was right in holding that termination
\n           of  the  workman  was contrary to law  and,  therefore,
\n           illegal.\n<\/p>\n
17. In the present case when the writ petition was
\n           filed,  while issuing Rule on 25.1.1985 this Court  had
\n           stayed  the reinstatement subject to full back wages of
\n           the workman concerned being deposited by the petitioner
\n           in  this  Court.  The workman was directed to  withdraw
\n           50%  of the deposit on giving security for  restitution
\n           in  case  the  rule is made absolute.  Yet  by  another
\n           order  dated 25.3.1985, having regard to the provisions
\n           of  Section 17B of the I.D.Act, further direction  was
\n           issued  to the Management to pay the workman full wages
\n           last   drawn  by  him   inclusive  of  any  maintenance
\n           allowance  admissible to him under the rule during  the
\n           pendency  of  proceedings.   By   another  order  dated
\n           20.1.1986  the  workman was allowed to withdraw 50%  of
\n           the   back  wages  deposited  by  the   Management   by
\n           dispensing  with  the  condition of furnishing  of  the
\n           security.   Remaining  50%  amount has been kept  in  a
\n           fixed deposit.\n<\/p>\n
18. After the order dated 25.3.1985 the Management
\n           started  paying  full wages at the rate of  Rs.1167\/-PM
\n           which  was paid up to July,1987 where after the  workman
\n           was  paid  at  the  rate   of  Rs.346\/-PM.   In   these
\n           circumstances  the workman filed CM.962\/88 and by order
\n           dated  December  1,1988  on the stay  application  this
\n           Court  clarified that full wages which were paid  would
\n           include  revision of wages i.e.  the wages to which the
\n           workman would have been entitled had he been taken back
\n           in  service and the direction was given to this  effect
\n           to   pay  him  Rs.1167\/-PM  in  stead  of   Rs.346\/-PM.
\n           Thereafter,  orders  were  made from time to  time  for
\n           payment  of the wages to the workman as per revised pay
\n           scale.   It  is thus clear from these orders  that  the
\n           workman  has got the salary for the intervening  period
\n           at  the  rate  at which he would have got but  for  his
\n           termination.   He  has also withdrawn 50% of  the  back
\n           wages  which  were awarded by the Tribunal.   Remaining
\n           50%  along  with interest are lying in the Court.   The
\n           workman  would  be entitled to withdraw that amount  as
\n           well.   The  effect  of that order would  be  that  the
\n           workman  has  got the salary of the entire period  from
\n           the date of his termination up to this date.\n<\/p>\n
19. As  noted  above, the petitioner had  levelled
\n           serious  allegations of misconduct against the  workman
\n           for  which he was placed under suspension and even  the
\n           charge-sheet  was issued.  However, without holding the
\n           enquiry,  provisions  of CCS (Temporary Service)  Rules
\n           were  resorted to.  Therefore, it would be open to  the
\n           petitioner  to  consider as to whether  the  petitioner
\n           wants  to  proceed with the enquiry.  Such  a  decision
\n           should  be  taken by the Competent Authority  within  a
\n           period   of  three  months  from   the  date   of   the
\n           communication of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
 20. Subject  to  the aforesaid observations,  this
\n           writ petition stands dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shri O.P. Singla And Anr. on 1 May, 2002 Author: A Sikri Bench: A Sikri JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The petitioner is Union of India. Respondent No.2 Shri Surender Prasad (hereinafter to be referred as “workman”) was employed in the departmental canteen of Ministry of Works […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-90051","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India (Uoi) vs Shri O.P. Singla And Anr. on 1 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shri O.P. Singla And Anr. on 1 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-02T15:32:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shri O.P. Singla And Anr. on 1 May, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-02T15:32:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3254,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002\",\"name\":\"Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shri O.P. Singla And Anr. on 1 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-02T15:32:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shri O.P. Singla And Anr. on 1 May, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shri O.P. Singla And Anr. on 1 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shri O.P. Singla And Anr. on 1 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-02T15:32:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shri O.P. Singla And Anr. on 1 May, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-02T15:32:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002"},"wordCount":3254,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002","name":"Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shri O.P. Singla And Anr. on 1 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-02T15:32:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-vs-shri-o-p-singla-and-anr-on-1-may-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shri O.P. Singla And Anr. on 1 May, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90051","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=90051"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90051\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90051"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90051"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90051"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}