SUBHASH & ORS. Vs. GURU TEG BAHADUR HOSP.GOVT.OF NCT DELHI & ORS

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 1545 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 19, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1545 OF 2016
                 (Arising out of SLP ( C) NO. 35512 of 2011)


      SUBHASH & ORS.                                         APPELLANTS

                                     VERSUS

      GURU TEG BAHADUR HOSPITAL
      GOVT.OF NCT DELHI & ORS.                              RESPONDENTS

                                       WITH

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.1546 OF 2016
                     (Arising out of SLP ( C) NO. 830 of 2012)


                                  J U D G M E N T

      KURIAN, J.


1.    Leave granted.

2.    The appellants  had  been,  according  to  them  working  as  Class-IV
employees under the respondent-Hospital during two  spells.  However,  there
is no record to show that they have been employed by the Hospital  and  have
been paid directly by the Hospital.
3.    Learned counsel for the  appellants  submits  that  though  it  was  a
direct employment by the Hospital, in order to  deny  regularization,  their
wages were being paid through the Contractor.  However, the learned  counsel
for the respondents submits that the appellants have never been employed  by
the Hospital and being the employees of a Contractor, they were paid by  the
Contractor.

4.    Having heard the learned counsel for both sides for  some time, we  do
not think that  this  Court  should  address  various  contentious  advanced
before this Court.
5.    In our view, the interest of the appellants can be protected  and  the
cause of justice be also advanced in case  a  direction  is  issued  to  the
respondent-Hospital that  in  future  if  any  Class-IV  vacancy  under  the
respondent-Hospital  is  filled  up,  preference  shall  be  given  to   the
appellants according to their inter-se seniority.  Needless to say that  the
objection on age bar shall be ignored.
6.     The  appeals  are  disposed  of  with   no   order   as   to   costs.



                                                         .................J.
                                                          [KURIAN JOSEPH]



                                                      ....................J.
                                                  [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
 NEW DELHI;
 FEBRUARY 19, 2016