DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION versus WORKMEN

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 994 · Decided: 18-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

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, re-
ferred 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 quali-
fication 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, cons-
truction 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 head-
quarters they will be enjoying the civic amenities in the same manner as 
the other employees who are doing operational work at the same head-
quarters. 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 cons-
truction 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 Refe-
rence 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 pay-
able 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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.