Case: Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. Workmen

is no justification for denying construction allowance to those workmen.18. The learned Attorney-General no doubt urged that except filing Annexure B along with the written statement, neither PW-1 nor PW-2, who gave evidence on behalf of the unions, has explained the contents of Annexure B and given any information as to the circumstances under which the workers coming under category (d) are eligible to get construction allowance. The learned Attorney-General is right in his criticism that these two witnesses have not said anything in their evidence about Annexure B. But, in our opinion, that does not absolve the appellant, who is in possession of all information regarding the matters mentioned therein, from placing the necessary materials before the Tribunal to show the distinguishing and differentiating features of the two categories of workmen coming under items (c) and (d). We have already referred to this fact that Annexure B was before the Tribunal as early as October 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 the work is being done other relevant factors regarding the eligibility of the particular group of workmen under category (c) to get construction allowance. Nor has the appellant placed any such material regarding the non-eligibility for construction allowance of the workmen coming 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 the construction site or who are posted at their headquarters, but have to visit the construction site during the process of construction, are 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 construction work of an extension project. The point to be noted from this evidence is that when the above two types of 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.19. According to the circulars already referred to, the essential qualification for getting construction allowance is that the employee must be stationed at the construction camp site. This is emphasised by the circular dated 14-2-1953. The reason for circular such payment is the arduous and exacting 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 M. W. 1 shows that construction allowance is paid to employees who are posted at head-quarters but have to visit the construction site during the process of construction. The essential qualification for receipt of construction allowance viz. of being stationed as 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 the same manner as the other employees who are doing operational work at the same headquarters. Thus there is no distinction between them in the mater of enjoying civic amenities. The former are paid construction allowance while the latter do not get the same.20. 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 case of the appellant that the Hospital staff, referred to earlier, is stationed at the construction site.It is not even in 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 General during the argument that a Doctor now and then visits the construction site to attend 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 Doctor for the moment, there is no justification for the entire staff of the Hospital being paid the said allowance. Even the plea made regarding the Doctor, has not been advanced before us regarding the remaining staff of the Hospital.21. 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) of Annexure B. The appellant has neither pleaded not 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 get the said allowance, when both of them are posted at the same place.22. In view of the materials on record, in the our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the employees, who are 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]From the circular of 1953 it is clear that the eligibility for receiving construction allowance is that the employee should be stationed at a construction camp, unless he comes under clause (b) of paragraph 1. Prima facie these two circulars give importance to the employee being at a particular place where he is discharging an arduous and exacting nature of constructionlearned Attorney-General is right in his criticism that these two witnesses have not said anything in their evidence about Annexure B. But, in our opinion, that does not absolve the appellant, who is in possession of all information regarding the matters mentioned therein, from placing the necessary materials before the Tribunal to show the distinguishing and differentiating features of the two categories of workmen coming under items (c) and (d). We have already referred to this fact that Annexure B was before the Tribunal as early as October 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 the work is being done other relevant factors regarding the eligibility of the particular group of workmen under category (c) to get construction allowance. Nor has the appellant placed any such material regarding the non-eligibility for construction allowance of the workmen coming 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 the construction site or who are posted at their headquarters, but have to visit the construction site during the process of construction, are 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 construction work of an extension project. The point to be noted from this evidence is that when the above two types of 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.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 case of the appellant that the Hospital staff, referred to earlier, is stationed at the construction site.It is not even in 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 General during the argument that a Doctor now and then visits the construction site to attend 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 Doctor for the moment, there is no justification for the entire staff of the Hospital being paid the said allowance. Even the plea made regarding the Doctor, has not been advanced before us regarding the remaining staff of theappellant has neither pleaded not 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 get the said allowance, when both of them are posted at the same place.22. In view of the materials on record, in the our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the employees, who are 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