SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- D.P. Mohapatra and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 2098 of 2001 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.17916 of 1999). D/d. 16.03.2001.

Chief Engineer, AHPC & MHPC and others - Appellants

Versus

Anand Pur Sahib Hydel Mazdoor Union - Respondent

Constitution of India, Article 226 - Writ - Non application of mind - Demand raised by workmen in two writ petitions not the same - High court passed order on the assumption that two writ petitions involved similar question - Order set aside- Matter remanded.

[Para 5]

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard Shri Harinder Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. In this appeal filed by the Chief Engineer, Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project Channel and Mukerian Hydel Project Channel and others, the judgment/order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 1st of June 1999 in C.W.P. No.19711 of 1998 is under challenge. The High Court disposed of the said writ petition by a cryptic order which reads thus -

"For orders see CWP 19698". This order was presumably passed on the assumption that the two writ petitions involve similar questions and, therefore, could be disposed of in the manner aforementioned.

4. This Court while issuing notice to the respondent by the order dated 26th November 1999 observed as under :

"Delay condoned. Notice to issue to show cause why the proceedings should not be remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision of the writ petition as it appears prima facie that the writ petition against the award dated 31.12.1996 was concerned with entirely different demands as compared to the demands which were considered by the Tribunal by its award dated 14.11.1996 and which came to be considered by the High Court in the companion matter in Writ Petition No.19968 of 1998, the judgment of which is simply relied on for disposing of the present writ petition. Notice may state that on the returnable date, the SLP will be finally disposed of."

5. Today, the learned counsel for the parties have accepted the position that the demands raised by the workmen in the two writ petitions filed before the High Court are not the same. While C.W.P. No.19698 of 1998 relates to the demands of boot allowance, uniform allowance washing allowance and pensionary benefits, the demands raised in C.W.P. No.19711 of 1998 are - regularisation of Work Charged Employees; abolition of Daily Wage System; payment of Bonus; Wheat Loan/Advance; and Conveyance/Cycle Allowance and Medical Allowance. Learned counsel for the parties fairly state that the judgment/order passed by the High Court should be set aside and the matter remanded to the High Court for disposal on merit. We are satisfied that the submission is fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal is allowed. The order dated 1st June 1999 in C.W.P. No.19711 of 1998 is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal on merit in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The High Court is requested to dispose of the case expeditiously.

No cost.

.