The Director Central Government Health Scheme (Cghs) & Ors. vs. Ram Chander & Ors.

Facts

The appellants, Director CGHS & Ors., filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 3/2025) challenging a Single Judge's order that upheld a Labour Court award dated 23.08.2019. The award, passed in a claim petition filed by 267 workmen (respondents), directed regularization of their services and payment of back wages. The appeal was filed with a delay of 63 days, and the respondents raised preliminary objections regarding this delay and the scope of interference in a Letters Patent Appeal. The appellants argued that the delay was due to the government hierarchy and the large number of workmen involved, and that the award entailed significant financial implications. They also contended that perversity or manifest error could be demonstrated, justifying interference.

Held

The Court condoned the delay of 63 days, finding that a technical view would lead to a miscarriage of justice given the award's impact on 267 workmen. The Court deferred the decision on the scope of interference as a preliminary objection, stating it would be dealt with later. On merits, the Court held that the Labour Court's finding that the contract between CGHS and private agencies was sham was unassailable, supported by the testimony of MW-2 who admitted CGHS exercised supervisory control, appointed, terminated, and transferred claimants. The Court modified the Labour Court's award regarding back wages. While upholding regularization, the Court found that granting salary from the date of initial engagement could not be countenanced as the workmen had accepted their engagement and remuneration for years. The Court directed regularization on vacant posts of Data Entry Operators/LDCs for those who continued until the award date, with formal orders within 90 days. Payment of applicable salary and allowances was to commence from 01.04.2026, with arrears from the Labour Court's award date (23.08.2019) up to the regularization order date to be cleared by 30.06.2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 63 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal should be condoned, considering the application's lack of detailed reasons and the Supreme Court's judgment in Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (Petitioner's contention: Condonation is sought on lenient grounds due to the large number of workmen and financial implications; Revenue's contention: The application lacks bona fide reasons and should be rejected based on precedent). 2. What is the scope of interference by the Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal against an order rejecting a writ petition concerning a Labour Court award? (Petitioner's contention: Interference is permissible if perversity or manifest error can be demonstrated; Revenue's contention: The scope of interference is very limited, especially against a detailed judgment of the Single Judge, and the appeal cannot be treated as a regular statutory appeal).