# DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION v. WORKMEN

- **Citation:** [1973] 3 S.C.R. 994
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-04-18
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE JURisorc'iroN :· Civil Appeal No. 1666 of 1968
- **Bench:** A. N. Grover, C. A. Vaidialingam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/damodar-valley-corporation-v-workmen-6600
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Industrial dispute-Right of employees to construction allowance.
One of the disputes between the appellant and the respondents, referred to the Industrial Tribunal, was whether construction allowance
should be payable to any categories of regular employees for extension
of existing projects after the operation stage had commenced, and if so,
to what extent and to which categories of regular employees. The Tribunal
held that the allowance should be payable to all categories of regular
employees including school teachers and welfare centre workers at any
station where there is both construction work and operational work.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : The Tribunal was justified in holding that the employees,
who were posted at the same station, some doing construction work and
others operational work, will both be entitled to construction allowance,
as the two sets of employees have to be treated and paid uniformly.
According to the circulars issued by the appellant the essential qualification for getting construction allowance was that the employee must be
stationed at the construction camp site, the reason 'for such payment being
the arduous and exacting nature of construction duties and the lack of
civic amenities at the camp site. The evidence in the case, however,
disclosed that the appellant had modified these principles, because, construction allowance
was paid even to employees who were posted
at
headquarters but who had to visit the construction site during the process.
of such construction. If such employees are posted or stationed at headquarters they will be enjoying the civic amenities in the same manner as
the other employees who are doing operational work at the same headquarters. There would be no distinction between them in the matter of
enjoying civic amenities, but the former are paid construction allowance
while the latter are not.
Also there is no justUication for denying construction allowance to the employees coming under the cate_gory of school
staff especially when employees coming under the head of hospital staff
are paid construction allowance.
The appellant has neither pleaded nor
established any factors distinguishing the two categories of employees.
r998 A; 1001 G-H; 1003 E-H; 1004 ~GJ
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURisorc'iroN :· Civil Appeal No. 1666
of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated January 27,
1968 of the National Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta in Reference No. NIT-2 of 1967.
D
)l
G
Niren De, Attorney-General for India, and D. N. Mukherjee,
H
f<Y- the appellant.
D. L. Sen Gupta and S. K. Nandy, for respondent No.2.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
D.V.C.V. WORKMEN (Vaidialingam, J.)

## Text

994
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION
v.
WORKMEN
April 18, 1973
(A. N. GROVER AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.]
Industrial dispute-Right of employees to construction allowance.
One of the disputes between the appellant and the respondents, referred to the Industrial Tribunal, was whether construction allowance
should be payable to any categories of regular employees for extension
of existing projects after the operation stage had commenced, and if so,
to what extent and to which categories of regular employees. The Tribunal
held that the allowance should be payable to all categories of regular
employees including school teachers and welfare centre workers at any
station where there is both construction work and operational work.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : The Tribunal was justified in holding that the employees,
who were posted at the same station, some doing construction work and
others operational work, will both be entitled to construction allowance,
as the two sets of employees have to be treated and paid uniformly.
According to the circulars issued by the appellant the essential qualification for getting construction allowance was that the employee must be
stationed at the construction camp site, the reason 'for such payment being
the arduous and exacting nature of construction duties and the lack of
civic amenities at the camp site. The evidence in the case, however,
disclosed that the appellant had modified these principles, because, construction allowance
was paid even to employees who were posted
at
headquarters but who had to visit the construction site during the process.
of such construction. If such employees are posted or stationed at headquarters they will be enjoying the civic amenities in the same manner as
the other employees who are doing operational work at the same headquarters. There would be no distinction between them in the matter of
enjoying civic amenities, but the former are paid construction allowance
while the latter are not.
Also there is no justUication for denying construction allowance to the employees coming under the cate_gory of school
staff especially when employees coming under the head of hospital staff
are paid construction allowance.
The appellant has neither pleaded nor
established any factors distinguishing the two categories of employees.
r998 A; 1001 G-H; 1003 E-H; 1004 ~GJ
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURisorc'iroN :· Civil Appeal No. 1666
of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated January 27,
1968 of the National Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta in Reference No. NIT-2 of 1967.
D
)l
G
Niren De, Attorney-General for India, and D. N. Mukherjee,
H
f<Y- the appellant.
D. L. Sen Gupta and S. K. Nandy, for respondent No.2.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
D.V.C.V. WORKMEN (Vaidialingam, J.)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VAIDIALINGAM, J. In this appeal,·by specialle~ve, the question:
that arises for consideration is the correctness of the award of
construction allowance to the operational staff.
·
By its order dated June 1, 1967, the Central Government
referred for adjudication to !the National Industrial Tribunal,
Calcutta, various disputes. We are concerned in this appeal only
with dispute No. 5(a} namely:-
"Should construction allowance be payaple to any
categories oi regular employees for extension of exjsting
projects after the operation stage has commenced? If
so, to what extent and to which categories of regular
employees?"
'The unions clrumed payment of construction allowance. to the
operational staff also while the management contested their claim.
The Tribunal by its award dated January 27, 1968, in Reference
No. NIT-2 of 1967 has held that construction allowance should
be payable to all categories of regular employees at any station
where work of extension of the ·existing project, after the operation
stage has commenced, is going on i.e. at any station where there·
is both construction work and operational work.
The Trib!l!!nal
has further directed such payment to be made uniformly to all
categories of regular employees posted at 'the station, including
school teachers and welfare centre workers.
According to the
directions given by the Tribunal, construction allowance is payable to all categories of regular employees who are posted at any
station where both construction work and operational work are
being carried on.
·
The learned Attorney General, on behalf of the
appellant,
urged that construction allowance is paid only to those employees,
who are actually on the site where the construction works are
going on.
Such payment, it is pointed out, was made· to compensate those employees tor lack of civic amenities at the site,
where construction work has been
started and is going
on.
According to him, the operational staff, who are posted in town·
ships enjoy all the am.enities provided therein and hence are not
eligible for payment of this construction allowance. In support
of this contention, the learned Attorney General referred us to
the circulars issued by the management
as
well
as
the answers given by the witnesses.
According to him,
the
directions given by the Tribunal, apart: from putting the appellant
to considerable expense, are contrary to the evidence adduced in
the case and even the claim made by the workm~n.
996
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 S.C.R.
Mr. Sen Gupta, learned counsel for the workmen, pointed
'OUt that the unions had placed materials before the Tribunal
to show that even certain employees domg operational work and
who had nothing to do with construction work, were being paid
construction allowance.
Therefore, the plea of the
appellant
that it is only the employees, who are actually posted and work
at the const:I1Uotion site that are eligible for much payment, is
contrary even to the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant.
The learned counsel also drew our attention to the relevant averments in the unions' written statenrents as well as the answers
_given by the appellant's witnesses themselves and urged that the
very limited relief granted by the Tribunal is justified.
At this stage we may mention that the learned Attorney stated
'that even employees posted at headquarters are paid construction
allowance provided they have to go to the construction site during
the process of construction.
It is now necessary to refer to the circulars issued
by the
management as well as the material part of the pleadings.
Annexure I to the Special Leave Petition regarding construction
.allowance is as follows :-
"DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION
REVISION OF PAY SCALES
Construction allowance granted in view
of the
arduous and exacting nature of construction duties shall
continue to be paid at places which are declared to be
construction camps and it shall be withdrawn from the
date the places are declared to have been ceased to be
construction camps.
To avoid undue hardship, such
withdrawal will be made in stages as
shown below
except in the cases of DIPS and BTPS 4th Unit employees :-
(i) For the fin:t 6 months from the
date of withdrawal of the construction allowance.
(ii) For the next 6 months
Allowance admissible
15 % ofpaysubjectto a muimuro
of Rs. 75/-.
10% of pay subject to a maximum of Rs. 50/-.
A
8
c
D
E
F
(iii) For the next 6 months
5% of pay subject to a maxiG
mum of Rs. 25/-.
(iv) Thereafter
Nil
----------·-------------
The above redu~ible allowance shall. ~ admissible
to such of the employ~ only as are in receipt of the·
construCtion allowance and continue to be stationed at
these places."
There is no controversy that the payment of
construction
allowance began somewhere about 19S2. In fact both the unions
Tepresenting the workmen admitted this fact in their written
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
D.V.C.V. WORKMEN (Vaidia/ingam, 1.)
997
statements. From the extract given ~bove, it will be noted that
the allowance is paid. in view of the arduous and exacting nature
of construction duties at places which are declared to be construction camps. In order to soften the rigour of its withdrawal,.
the said payment is slowly stopped in the circumstances arid at
the rates mentioned therein, when once the concerned places.
have ceased to be construction camps.
On February 14, 1953, another circular was issued regarding
the construction allowance by the appellant. The relevant part
of the circular procee.ds to state:
"It has been decided by the Corporation to continue
the grant of Construction Allowance at the rate of 20%
oe pay (rounded to the nearest (rupee) up to maximum
of Rs. 100/- p.m. The admissibility of
t~e allowance
wjll be subject to the following conditions:-
( 1 ) Construction Allowance, which will be i-n the
nature of a Compensatory Allowance, will be admissible
to:-
( a) all employees in the regular establishment
stationed at Construction Camps;
NOTE : "Construction Camps" means all camps which have
been specifically set up by the DVC for construction
work and where such work is either due to start or is in
progress. They will cease to be considered as "Construction Camps" as soon as the construction work has been
completed. The following are the Construction camps
now in existence:
Tilaiy, Konar, Bokaro, Maithon, Panchet, Durgapur
and all other Irrigation Camps;
(b) Em ployess stationed at townships not set up by
the DVC, such as Asansol, Gopalpur, Burdwan and
Hazaribagh, only if and when their activities are connected with construction and lie ou~side a radius of 5 miles
from the respective township,
(c) The staff employed on the construction substation at Loyabad, Sindri and other elaces as well as the.
staff stationed at Kodanna, Hazaribagh Road Station,
Gomia, Tasra and Muri.''
•
*
•
•
•
From the circular ol 1953 it is clear that the eligibility for
rec~ivng construction allowance is that the employee should be
stat10ned at a construction camp, unless he comes under clause
(b) of paragraph l. Prima-facie these two circulan give impor··
'998
SUPREME COURT 1\:EPOR.TS
[1973] 3 s.c.R..
tance to the employee being at a particular place where he is
discharging an arduous and exacting nature of construction work.
We will now refer to the pleadings. The workmen were rep-
:resented by two unions, D.V.C. Staff Association (hereinafter to
be referred to as the Association) and D.V.C. Karamchari Sangh
resented by two unions, D.V.C. Staff Association (hereinafter to
its written statement dated September 19, 1967, the Association
states:-
"That the construction allowance was introduced by
the Corporation in the year 19S2 and the same was
.being given to the wor~ers who work in the construc~ion
divisions only. The rate of C.A. was 20% of pay subject
'to a maximum of Rs. 100/·".
The Sangh in its written statement date October 7, 1967, has
stated that the construction allowance was introduced in the year
1952 and that the same is given to those workers who work in
construction divisions. In paragraph 16 ot the v.:ritten statement
it has stated:
"That me chart marked annexure 'B' will show at a
glance which categories of workmen and at what stage
rof work and under what circwnstances become entitled
to the construction allowance and at what rate."
In Annexure 'B' to the written statement, the Sangh had given
the particulars regarding the categories of workers who were peing
given construction allowance, as well as the rates at which such
workers were getting. It had 'also given particulars regarding the
category of workers who were not getting the construction allowance. It is only necessary to refer, in this Annexure 'B', to the
workers coming under items (a), (c) and (d) as well as the note.
a.
'b,
c.
od.
oe,
ANNEXURE 'B'
CONSTRUCTION ALLOWANCE
Category of
Rate •
Stage and
Workers
circumstances
All W::>rkers borne on 20% of pay
Workers get construction allow.
regular Establishment
ance from the very beginning
till th! operation stage,
X
X
X
Workers of common ser20% of pay
These workers continue to e~oy
vices, such as security
the
benefit of construe on
staff, Hospital Staff, staff
allowance at all the staaes.
of Inspection Bangalow
and others.
Schools staff, Welfare
Nil
They cease to get construction
Centre staff etc.
allowance after the commencement of th~s secondary stage.
X
X
X
A
B
c
D
I
F
G
H
n.v.c.v. woRKMEN (Vaidialingam, 1.)
999
A.
NOTE: Construction camp (for the purpose ol construction
allowance) means all camps which have been _specifi·
cally set up by the D.V.C. for construction work and
where such work is either due to start or is in progress.
They will cease to be considered as
.. Construction
Camps" as soon as the construction work has been com·
pleted."
B
c
0
It is to be noted that in Annexure •a•, the Sangh had catesorl·
cally stated that the workers of common services, such as s.ecurity
staff, hospital staff, staff of inspection bunsalows and others were
gettins the construction allowance at all stages, whereas the school
staff, welfare centre staff, etc. ceased to get the construction
allowance after the commencement of the secondacy stage,
The appellant filed its written statement on December 3, 1967.
In p~ragraph 46, it has met
the
allegations
contained in
paragraphs 51 to 53 of the Association's written statement. It
has averred that the construction allowance is intended to com·
pcnsate the employees, at construction camps, when construction
of a project has commenced in rural or hilly areas without any of
the amenities of a townsliip for the deprivation of such amenities.
The appellant has further stated that the employees engaged in
the operation of a project, after it has reached the operational
·stage, ·arc not justified in claiming a construction ·allowance, It has
further pleaded that the allowance is withdrawn in the course of
two years to avoid hardship to the employees, who cease to be in
the construction camps. Here again it will be seen that the case of
the appellant is that the construction allowance is paid only to
those employees who are in the construction camp, that is the site
where the construction work is goin,g on. It is only then that
those employees will not be having the amenities of a township
iF
because the construction site will be in a rural or hilly area.
There is a reference to Annexure 'B' in paragraph 50 of the
appellant's written statement. A major part of thall: paragraph
deals with some of the averments mde by the Association. Wtth
re&ard to Annexure 'B', it is stated;
" . . . . . . It is denied that the claims made by the
employees in Annexure 'B' to the said statement should
be granted in full or at all or with retrospective effect or
at an or that any part of them should be granted as
claims or at all."
The learned Attorney General was prepared to accept the
position that the denial regarding Annexure 'B' in this paragraph
relates to the same Annexure 'B' filed by the Sangh along with
dts written statement and referred to in paragraph 16 of their
1000
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(19731 3 s.c.R.
written statment. It must be stated that if paragraph 50 has not
met with the averments in Annexure 'B', there is no other paragraph
in the written statement of the appellant dealing wilth Atmexure
'B'. Therefore, it is reasonable to proceed on the basis that 'the
only paragraph dealing with Annexure 'B' is this para~aph 50.
The point to be noted is that while the Sangh has categonc~ly stated in annexure 'B' (which was part of the written s_tatement filed
as early as October 7, 1967) the workers coming under category
(c), who get construction allowance at all stages, and the workers
coming under category (d), who
cease to get
construction
allowance after the commencement of the secondary stage, the
appellant, though it iiled its written statement only as late as
December 2, 1967, has not explained nor given any information
as to the circumstances under which these two categories either
get or do not get construction allowance, and if so, under what
·circumstances. The appellant was content with merely denying
-the--claim made in annexure 'B'. It must be emphasised that while
the appellant has specifically taken the plea in paragraph 46 of
its written statement that construction allowance is paid only \\'hen
the employees are actually, so to say, stationed at the construction
site, there was a duty on its part to properly explain and given
particulars how the workers, su~h as security staff, hospital staff,
staff of inspection bungalows and others got construction allowance and the employees of the schools~ welfare centres and other
staff did not get that allowance.
One would have e~pected the
app~Jlant to clearly refer to the nature of the duties performed by
these various employees coming under categories (c) and (d) as
well as the places where they are located, namely, whether at the
comtruction site or at places where a township has grown and
amenities are available.
At this stage we can also mention that
even during 1he trial of the proceedings, the appellant has not
adduced any evidence in respect of the matters that we have just
mentioned, though it has produced evidence, oral and documentary.
We will now refer to the oral evidence adduced in the case.
PW-1. the Joint Secretary of the Association, has stated in chief
e~amination that the
mana~ement does not pay construction
allowance to all categories of workmen at the same place.
He
has further deposed that at the same station some are paid such.
allowance and other workmen of the same category do not get
the same. In cross-examination, he has stated that construction
allowance was given to workers connected with the construction
work whether they stayed in the construction camps or not. He
has further deposed that construction aUowance was given to
remove hardship arising from the site of work and to compensate
for absence of amenities, like schools, hospitals, bazars and other
benefits of civilised life. When the construction has progressed,
townships and colonies have grown with all amenities at some
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
"
D.v.c. v. WOI.DriBN (Yaidialingam, 1.)
1001
A
stations. PW-2, tho Joint Secretary of the Sangb, has stated that
all the sites of wo.rk under the management have not been provided
with schools, bazars, hospitals and other amenities.
B
Tho material part of tho evidence of MW-1, Director of
Personnel, who gave evidence on boha1f of tho management, is
as follows :-
When work on any project has started at any site, where no
civic amenities• are. available, the site is termed as 'CQnsttuction
camp' and personS employed therein
are given construction
allowance to compensate for lack of civic amenities.
Till the
work there is completed and the camp is declared a nonconstruction camp, every employee working therein gets
cone
struction allowance. It may happen that a r>rtion of a project
has ~
completed and has gone into .operation ~
the. remaining portion of the project is at the construction stage. In such cues,
the establishment is divided into a construction establishment, attending to construction which is still going on, and an operational
establishment. All employees of construction establishment Jet
D
construction allowance, which is withdrawn ip. a phased manner
from the employees of the operational establishment. When
construction work at one construction camp is complete, such of
the regular employees, as are required for operational work at the
camp are retained there and the remaining regular employees are
transferred. If they are transferred to another construction camp,
E
they get construction allowance; ~here8.s if they are transferred to
a non-construction camp, they will not get construction allowance.
The regular employees, who are at the construction site or who are
posted at their headquarters,. but have to visit the construction site
during the process of construction, are paid c~nstruction allowance.
We have generally set out the nature of the materials on record.
F
From the above· materials, the following
conclusions broadly
emerge:-
Construction allowance is paid to employees of the regular
establishment, who are stationed at the construction camps, in view
of the arduous and exacting nature of construction duties they
perform. Construction allowance is given. to compensate for the
G
lack of civic amenities. Even the regular employees, who are at
their headquarters, but have to visit the construction site during
the process of construction, are, according to PW-1, paiQ. the
construotion allowance.
·
There is no controversy the employeeS, who are stationed at
H
the construction site and are employed therein are eligible for being
paid the construction allowance.
There is also no controversy
that the employees, who are doing the operational work, which
must be in a place where amenities are available, are not eligible
16~ 797SupCI/73
1002
SUPREME COU~T.REPORTS
.
[1973] 3 S.C.R.
for construction allowance. The controver~y arises regarding the
regular employees, who are in the same statJon, but so~e of who~n
are doing operational work and others do construction work m
an extension project. The claim of the workmen is that no distinction should t)e made in the matter of payment of con!>uuction
allowance to the regular employees, who are posted at the same
station, merely on the ground 'that some of them are employed in
· operational work and the others are in construction work in
·connection with the extension of a project. According to them,
the employees doing work. in the construction project are not
stationed at the construction site.
On the other hand, they arc
also stationed in a township where amenities are available. lf
under such circwnstances, they are paid construction allowance,
which is really to compensate for l~ck of such amenities, there is
no reason why the said allowance should not be paid to
the
operational staff working at the same station merely becaus.:! civic
amenities are already provided.
The sum and substance of the
claim of the workmen is that under such circumstances both types
of workmen, posted at the same station should be paid t:onstruction
allowance.
Very strong. reliance has naturally been placed on behalf of
the respondents on Annexure 'B' filed along with the written statement of the Sangh on October 7, 1967. We have already referred
to the averments in paragraph 16 of the said written statement
as well as the contents ol Annexure 'B'. 1he workers
under
·category (c) in this
Annexure are
getting
the
construction
:lllowance. There is no evidence placed before the Tribunal by
the appellant regarding the places of work of the
employees
coming under category (c); nor explaining the reasons qualifying
·
~ucb workmen to get the construction allowance.
According to
the union.~, school staff and welfare centre staff coming under
category (d) are also similarly situated . as 1he employees under
cate~ory (c) and that there is no justification for denying cons·
trucuon allowance to those workmen.
.
. The learned Attorney General no Joubt urged that except
fihng Annexure '13' ruong with the written statement neither PW-l
nor PW-2, who gave evidence on behalf of\he unio~s. ha~ explain.
cd th.c content., of Annexure 'B' and given any infonnatron as tL)
the crrcums~a~ces under which the .workers comin~ under c::~tcgory
(d) <~rc eligible to get construction allowance.
The
l~arn.:d
Attornt'y General is right in his criticism that these two wit111.~sse'i
have. nat !laid. anything in their evidence about
Annexure 'B'.
flut, 10 .our optnio~, that docs not absolve the appellant, who i-. in
J'{N,~:_·,·, rnn oC :Jll .mformation regarding the matters
mentionl!d
1h·:rt:rn. from oiJcrng the necessary materials before the Tribunal
to -..huw tht: di\tingui.,hing and differentiating features of the two
--···
' •
...,,.....
A
c
[)
E
F
G
II
A
8
c
0
E
f
G
II
D.V.C. V, WORKMEN (Vaidialingam, J.)
1003
categorie.; of wvrkmen coming u.nder items (c) and (d).
We
have already referred to the fact that· Anne~ure 'B' was before
the l'ribunal as early as Octobjer 7, 1967. The appellant filed
Its written statement only on December 2, 1967. Except a bald
denial regarding Annexure 'B', the appellant has not assisted the
Tribunal by placing before it details or particulars such as the
nature of work, the place where .he work is being done and other.
relevant factors regarding the eligibility of the particulat· group of
workroell under category (c) to get
construction
allowance.
Nor has the appellant placed any such material regarding the noneligibility for construction allJwance of the workmen corning under
category (d). The appellant, who is in possession of all facts, has
furnished no information regarding the distinction between the
workmen coming under the two categories. The material . part
of the evidence of MW-1 has already been referred to by
us.
He has stated that the regular employees, who
are
at
Lhe
construction site or who are posted at their headquarters, but have
to visit the construction site during the process of construction, arc
paid construction allowance.
That witness could have very well
referred to the different types of work, if any,
done by the
employees coming under categories (c) and (d) of Annexure 'B'.
No such evidence has been furnished by that or any other witness.
He has also admitted that at the same station a time will come
when there are two sets of employees, some connected with the
operational work and the others coll!nected with the construction
work of an extension project. The point to be noted from this
evidence is that when the above two types or employees are posted
at 'the same station, both of them will be having the benefit of the
civic amenities provided at that station, because, even according
to the appellant, by the time the operational stage is reached, full
civic amenities are already provided.
According to the circulars already referred to, the essential
qualification for getting construction allowance is that the employees
must be stationed at the construction camp site.
This is emphasised by the circular dated 14-2:1973. The reason for such payment
is the arduous and ~acting nature of construction duties and the
lack of civic amenities at the camp site. Obviously, the appellant
has modified the above principle. The evidence of MW -1 shows
that construction allowance is paid to employees who are posted
at headquarters but have to visit the construction site during the
process of construction.
The e;sential qualification for receipt
of construction allowance viz. of being stationed at construction
camp site, has been modified by the appellant. If such employees
are posted or stationed at headquarters, they will be enjoying the
civic amenities in t:!e same manner as the other employees who
are doing operational work at the same headquarters. Thus there
1004
SUPRBMB COUI.T R.BPOR.TS
[1973] 3 s.c.R.
is no distinction between them in the matter of enjoying of civic
amenities. 1be former as paid construction allowance while the
latter do not get the same.
·For instance, according to' the respondents, the entire hospital
staff coming under item (c) in annexure 'B' get construction
allowance. This has not been controverted by the appellant. Nor
is it the case of the appellant that the Hospital staff, relerred to
earij.er, is stationed at the construction site. It is not even the case
of the appellant that the Hospital staff is covered by clause (b)
of paragraph 1 of the circular of 1953. In fact the appellant,
except making a general denial, has. not cared to place any material
before the Tribunal regarding the location of the Hospital and its
staff. It was faintly suggested by the Attorney during the arguments that a Doctor now and then visits the construction site to
attend on employees who may require medical assistance.
We
will assume that it is so. Even then, according to the circular, the
said Doctor cannot get construction allowance, as he is not
stationed at the construction site. Leaving out the Doctor for the
momentt there is not justification for the entire staff of the Hospital
being paid the said allowance. Even the plea made regarding the
Doctor. has not been advanced ~fore us regarding the remaining
staff of the hospital.
Though we are not concerned with the question whether the
staff of the hospital should . or should not get construction
allowance, we have referred to the above circumstances only to
show that there is no justification
for denying construction
allowance to the employees coming under item (d) or Annexure.
'B'. The appellant has neither pleaded nor established any factors
distinguishing the school staff coming under item (d) from the
hospital staff referred to in item (c) of Annexure 'B'. If so,
it follows that when the employees under item (c) are paid construction allowance, it stands to reason that the employees under
item (d) should also get1the said allowance, when b~h of them
me posted at the same place.
fu .view of the materials on record, in our opinion, the Tribunal
was i\lStified in holding that the employees, who are posted at the
same station, some doing construction work and other operational
work, wm both be entitled to construction allowance. as the two
sets of employees have to be treated and paid uniformly. The
appeal in the result fails and is dismissed with costs of the respondents one set.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed
B
c
I)
E
F
B