Delhi District Court
Priyanka vs The Department Of Women And Child … on 5 August, 2025
ID No: 169/2018 "Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
ID No. 169/2018
CNR No. DLCT13-003760-2018
Priyanka
W/o Sh. Yogesh Sharma,
H. No. 238, Gali no. 54, H/7
Molarband Extension
New Delhi-110044 ..... Workman
Versus
1. The Director,
Department Of Women And Child Development,
Canning Lane,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Managing Director,
M/s Intelligent Communication System India Limited
Administrative Building,
First Floor, Above Post Office,
Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III,
New Delhi-110020. .... Management
Date of institution 27.07.2018
Order reserved on 19.07.2025
Date of Award 05.08.2025
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
MANAN
GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:48:23
+0530
Award 1 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 "Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
AWARD
1. Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of
Delhi has referred this dispute vide F.24/()/Lab/SD/2017-8482
dated 17.04.2018 for adjudication with following terms of the
reference:
"Whether the services of Ms. Nisha and 49 Ors. as
per (Annexe-A) have been discontinued by the
management as per the terms and conditions of their
appointment issued by the ICSIL or their services
have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by
the management in violation of section 33(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and if so, to what relief
are they entitled what directions are necessary in this
respect?"
Statement of Claim
2. In her claim, workman has stated that she initially joined as
Aganwari worker in the respondent management no. 1
Department with effect from 31.10.2005 at a monthly
honorarium of Rs.2500/- on the condition that she can hold the
post till she attains the age of 60. Honorarium has been
increased from time to time.
3. It is stated that while she was working as Aganwari worker she
had been engaged as Aganwari supervisor with effect from
20.07.2016 in the respondent management No. 1 department.
At monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- and her services as Aganwari
supervisor have been discontinued with effect from 25.09.2017
Digitally signed
her last drawn wages were Rs. 17,862/-. GAUTAM
by GAUTAM
MANAN
Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:48:34
+0530
Award 2 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
4. It is stated that the appointment letter dated 31.10.2005 for
Aganwari worker was issued by respondent no. 1, the
appointment letter dated 20.07.2016 for Aganwari supervisor
as well as letter dated 25.09.2017 of discontinuation of her
services from that post were given by respondent No.2. It is
mentioned that she worked as Aganwari worker or supervisor
with the respondent no. 1 department under the dictates and
guidance of the officials of the respondent no. 1 and
responsibility of respondent no. 2 was only a recruitment
agency and to supply man power to the respondent no. 1 on
outsourced basis.
5. It is stated that respondent no. 2 issued an advertisement for
recruiting Aganwari Supervisors to which the workman
responded and sent her application for consideration.
Respondent no.2 conducted a written examination and the
workman came out of it successfully then the high officials of
respondent no. 1, bereft of a single official from respondent no.
2, conducted a thorough and grueling interview and selected
the workman for the said post then, strangely the respondent
no.2 came into the scene and issued a appointment letter dated
20.07.2016 engaging the claimant on purely contractual/
outsourcing basis. Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
MANAN
GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:48:39
+0530
Award 3 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 "Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
6. It is stated that workman worked very sincerely and honestly
and there was not an iota of allegation regarding the
performance during her tenure but the respondent no.2 all of a
sudden issued a letter dated 25.09.2017 to the workman
informing her that her services from the post of Aganwari
supervisor have been discontinued with effect from 01.10.2017
on the ground that the respondent no.1 has started to engage
Aganwari supervisors on regular basis.
7. It is stated that workman after having the essential and
desirable qualifications and experience as desired by the
Department and meeting the age requirements and after putting
significant years of work as Aganwari worker and after
becoming successful in the interview similar to that conducted
by DSSSB joined as Supervisors and also completed more than
one year service with remarkable performance without any
stigma. As such, any move to flush her out of the employment
without following the cannons of justice and mandatory
provisions of service laws is illegal and unjustified.
8. It is stated that essential qualification for the job is graduation
but preferable qualification is graduation in Child
Development or Nutrition or Home Science or Social Work. It
is stated that workman has possessed that preferable
qualification such as graduation in those preferred areas as
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:48:44 +0530Award 4 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
mentioned above, where as the candidates selected by the
DSSSB have only a normal graduation and in most cases they
have engineering degrees which are unrelated to the jobs they
have to do. By mere mathematical skills, aspirants qualify the
written examination conducted by the DSSSB which is suitable
for mathematical aptitude candidates depriving the candidates
from social science background occupy the jobs meant for
social welfare by replacing the claimant, who has requisite
degree in social work, home science etc.
9. Workman averred that the number of vacancies advertised by
DSSSB was 290 and out of that, 25% of vacancies are reserved
for Aganwari Workers who are matriculate and having 10 years
experience but it came to light under this reserved category, not
even a single Aganwari Worker was selected by DSSSB. These
25% of vacancies can be filled up by the workman who has 10
years experience as Aganwari Worker.
10. Workman has submitted that list that proposed by DSSSB
shows that the candidates selected for Aganwari Supervisor
posts are not graduates in Child Development or Nutrition or
Home Science of Social Work from recognized university or a
female matriculate with 10 years experience as an Aganwari
worker, with a desirable qualification of one year practical
experience in the field of social work in any Government
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:48:50
+0530Award 5 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
Department / recognized voluntary organization in a regular
paid capacity.
11.Workman submitted that an artificial name tag of contractual
employment has been attached to the workman to get rid of her
whims and fancies of the respondent no.1. The nature of job
which the workman was doing, the instructions which she
received from the Department on regular basis, disciplinary
rules applicable to her, the wages she received, the leaves she
applied – establishes that it is a regular job having a sham
contract was wrapped all over it.
12. It is submitted that an Industrial Dispute regarding the
regularization of the services of the workman along with
similarly situated employees was pending before the Ld.
Deputy Labour Commissioner and during the pendency of the
said dispute, the respondents terminated the services of the
claimant. It is stated that as per Section 33 (1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, management cannot terminate the services
of the workmen and hence, the termination of workman is
illegal and unjustified.
13.It is further stated that workman has put more than one year of
continuous service as Supervisor and before that 12 years of
continuous service as Aganwari worker, without any break. Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:48:57
+0530Award 6 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
Hence, Section 25 F is applicable in the instant case. As the
termination of the claimant has not followed the mandatory
stipulated conditions as laid down in Section 25-F of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the termination of the services of the
claimant is illegal and unjustified.
14. It is stated that during the tenure of the workman as Aganwari
supervisor and worker the respondents have never issued any
memo or charge-sheet or conducted and domestic query
regarding her performance and workman has not resigned from
the post of Aganwari worker while getting appointment as
Aganwari supervisor in 2016 as such, her lien survives in the
post of Aganwari worker. She wrote letters to the respondent
no.1 seeking reinstatement as Aganwari worker, reserving her
right to claim the post of Supervisor in court of law. But the
respondent no. 1 maintained deaf silence.
15.It is stated that workman is unemployed since the date of her
termination and despite her best efforts she could not get any
alternative employment and hence, it is prayed that an award
be passed in favour of workman and against respondents
holding that her termination is illegal and unjustified and direct
the respondent no. 1 to reinstate the workman in the post of
“Aganwari Supervisor” with full back wages and attended
benefits. Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
MANAN
GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:49:02
+0530
Award 7 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 "Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
Written Statement of Department/ Respondent no.1
16.Respondent no.1 has stated that workman was working with
the Department on honorary post of Aganwari Worker on
fixed honorarium and as such, she was neither receiving
salary nor wages. It is stated that workman left the honorary
job on her own sweet will to join non-permanent and
temporary job of Supervisor on outsource contractual basis
through respondent no.2.
17. It is stated that workman joined the Department as an
outsource contractual employee on specific terms and
conditions against the post of Supervisor and her engagement
was valid till the time regular incumbent are appointed to the
post of Supervisor or till the end of contract period whichever
was earlier. When regular incumbents joined on the posts of
Supervisor, engagement of the workman was discontinued by
ICSIL (respondent no.2) but workman now wants to join back
on the honorary post of Aganwari Worker / Supervisor. It is
stated that honorary positions of Aganwari Workers are no
more vacant and as per rules, the same cannot be kept vacant
when any social worker / honorary worker leaves the job.
18.It is stated that Department had published an advertisement
for engagement of Aganwari Workers under ICDS and the
workman had an opportunity to apply for the same. It is Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:49:08
+0530Award 8 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
submitted that DSSSB which is the notified recruitment
agency for the post of Supervisor initiated and completed the
regular selection process for the posts of Supervisors and the
workman was having an opportunity to apply for the same,
but she did not apply / could not clear the selection process
and now, she wants to join as a backdoor entry as Aganwari
Worker/ Supervisor without following the due procedure laid
down by the law.
19.It is stated that workman failed in fulfilling an utmost
important social service, and she was under moral obligation
for providing vital interventions to address the issue of under
nutrition among the most vulnerable sections of the society
i.e. children under 6 years, pregnant women, lactating
mothers and adolescents girls which she failed to fulfill as she
left the job abruptly without giving proper notice to the
Department for making alternate arrangement. Thus, the
workman left the Honorary job of Aganwari Worker without
information.
20.It is stated that workmen applied for contractual job of ICSI
Ltd. without any intimation to the Department, and they
joined the contractual job without any permission. Workmen
came back when to the Department after a lapse of some 2
years when they were removed from the contractual
Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2025.08.06
22:49:13 +0530
Award 9 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
employment by the outsource service provided agency ICSIL.
Due to sudden runaway of workmen from the important
social service job of Aganwari Worker, underprivileged
children of Delhi suffered a lot. As far as the rule position is
concerned any Aganwari Worker who remained absent from
duties for more than 3 months stand removed from honorary
service of Aganwari Worker.
21. It is submitted that the post of Aganwari Worker is not
considered a civil post as clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in its Judgment in Case No. Appeal (Civil) 4953-
4957 of 1998 titled “State of Karnataka &Ors Vs. Ameerbi &
Ors“. The workman was initially engaged on the honorary
post of Aganwari Worker to work in Aganwari Centre (AWC)
under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Integrated Chid
Development Services (ICDS) of Government of India at the
monthly honorarium of Rs. 2,500/- which was increased
being revised from time to time. At present the same is Rs.
9,678/-. It is stated that engagement of workman is temporary
and her position cannot be equated with any other position
under the Govt. of India and no legal dispute of any kind shall
be acceptable for this voluntary honorary work. The service
of an Aganwari worker can be discontinued at any time
without assigning any reason. Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:49:18 +0530Award 10 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
22. It is submitted that workman on her choice, withdrew from
the post of Aganwari Worker upon being short-listed for the
post of contractual Supervisor by ICSIL and was placed with
management of respondent no.1 to work on purely
contractual and outsourced basis under ICDS. Services of the
workman as Aganwari Supervisor was discontinued w.e.f.
01.10.2017 following completion of selection process of
Aganwari Supervisors on regular basis by Delhi Subordinate
Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and upon receiving the
dossiers of selected candidates and subsequently joining of
new incumbents in the Department. It is stated that entire
procedure was done as per the settled legal position by
Hon’ble Apex court in the matter of Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (Supreme Court-2006). Other
averments made in the statement of claim have been denied
and dismissal of the claim has been prayed for.
Written Statement of Respondent no.2
23.It is stated on behalf of respondent no.2 that the workman has
got no locus-standi to file the present claim since the
workman was appointed on purely contractual basis for fixed
period w.e.f the date of joining till the end of the
contract/work order awarded to respondent no.2 by the
Department. It is stated that at the time of appointment
workman had gone through the terms and conditions
mentioned in the Letter for contractual Engagement dated Digitally
signed by
GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:49:36
+0530Award 11 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
20.07.2016 and same had been also explained in detail by the
respondent and after understanding the terms and conditions
incorporated on the said appointment letter signed on the
same. Thus, workman admitted all terms and conditions on
appointment letter, and she is bound to follow it. Hence, the
present claim deserves to be dismissed.
Issues
24.On 28.11.2019, on the basis of pleadings of the parties,
following issues were framed:
1. Whether the claimant is not a workman as defined in
Section 2(s) ID Act, 1940? (OPM 1).
2. Whether dispute is not an industrial dispute within the
meaning of Section 2 (k) ID Act, 1940? (OPM 1)
3. Whether the claimant has no locus standi to file the present
claim petition against management no.2? (OPM 2).
4. Terms of reference.
5. Relief.
Workman’s Evidence
25. In order to prove her entitlement, workman examined herself
as WW1 and tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit
Ex.WW1/A. She deposed on the lines of her claim.
Management/ Respondent’s Evidence
26. Respondent no.1 examined MW1 Nafees Ahmed who
tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.M1W1/A. He
proved copy of an letter dated 25.09.2017 for discontinuation
Digitally
of services of outsourced supervisors issued by respondent GAUTAM
signed by
GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:49:42
+0530Award 12 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
no.2 as Ex M1W1/1, copy of contract as Ex. M1W1/2, copy
of order through which the request made by workmen was
declined as Ex. M1W1/3, copy of the offer of engagement of
the workman as Aganwari worker dated 27.02.2020 as
Ex.M1W1/4, copy of circulars of issued by Department/
respondent no.1 as Ex. M1W1/5 & 6.
27. Respondent no.2 examined MW2 Deepti Gupta, Manager
Legal of respondent no.2, she tendered her evidence by way
of an affidavit Ex.M2W1/A. She proved her authority letter as
Ex M2W1/1 and letter of engagement of workman as
Aganwari Supervisor as Ex. M2W1/2.
28.Final arguments have been heard at length as advanced by
both the parties. Tribunal has gone through the documents,
pleadings as well as written arguments submitted on behalf of
parties.
Analysis and Discussion
Issue No.1: Whether the claimant is not a workman as
defined in Section 2(s) ID Act, 1940? (OPM 1)
29. To determine whether an Aganwari supervisor is considered a
workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, we must analyze
the relevant legal definitions and judgments that clarify the
status of such employees. Under Section 2(s) of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, definition of ‘workman’ is as follows: Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:49:47
+0530Award 13 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
“Workman” means any person (including an
apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,
operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire
or reward, whether the terms of employment be
express or implied, and for the purposes of any
proceeding under this Act in relation to an
industrial dispute, includes any such person who
has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in
connection with, or as a consequence of, that
dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does
not include any such person
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, or
the Army Act, 1950, or the Navy Act, 1957; or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as
an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory
capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand
rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the
nature of the duties attached to the office or by
reason of the powers vested in him, functions
mainly of a managerial nature.”
30.It is evident that Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, a “workman” defines as any person employed in any
industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,
operational, clerical, or supervisory work for hire or reward.
However, the definition also excludes certain categories of
individuals, including those employed mainly in a managerial
or administrative capacity. Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:49:52 +0530Award 14 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
31.Whether an Aganwari supervisor is considered a workman
depends on the specific duties and the nature of their
employment under the ICDS scheme and if their functions
align with those described in the Industrial Disputes Act, they
can be classified as workmen.
32. It is argued on behalf of workman that in Arkal Govind Raj
Rao Vs Ciba Gdigy of India Ltd, 1985 AIR 985, Hon’ble Apex
Court held that “The words like managerial or supervisory
have to be understood in their proper connotation and their
mere use should not detract from the truth.” The Court further
held in the same case that whether an employee is a workman
or not has to be tested according to “what was the primary,
basic or dominant nature of duties for which the person
whose status is under enquiry was employed.”
33.During course of his cross-examination, MW1 Nafees
Ahmed, Deputy Director of respondent no.1 deposed that
Aganwari Supervisor did not have any powers to charge-
sheet, suspend or dismiss any Aganwari worker. From the
deposition of MW1 it becomes evident that nature of the job
of Aganwari Supervisor shows that the job profile does not
have any power to issue charge-sheet, hold any departmental
enquiry or terminate services of any other employee in the
Department and this indicates that even though the Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
MANAN
GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:49:57
+0530
Award 15 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 "Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
nomenclature is of Aganwari Supervisor, but Aganwari
Supervisor is in fact doing regular workman functions.
34.Onus to prove that claimant is not a workman within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act is on the respondent
no.1, however, nothing is proved on record by the respondent
no.1/ management to indicate that an Aganwari Supervisor is
doing any work in a managerial or administrative capacity.
As such, claimant comes within the ambit of ‘workman’
under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Accordingly, issue no. 1
stands answered in favor of the workman and against the
management.
Issue No.2: Whether dispute is not an Industrial Dispute
within the meaning of Section 2 (k) ID Act, 1940? OPM
35.Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines an
“industrial dispute” as any dispute or difference between
employers and employers, employers and workmen, or
between workmen and workmen, connected with the
employment or non-employment, the terms of employment,
or the conditions of labor, of any person. Essentially, it covers
disputes related to jobs, pay, and working conditions.
36.It is argued on behalf of respondent no.1 that claimant was
working with the Department on honorary post of Aganwari Digitally
signed by
GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:50:02
+0530Award 16 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
Worker on fixed honorarium and as such she was neither
receiving salary nor wages. It is stated that workman left the
honorary job on her own sweet will to join non-permanent
and temporary job of Supervisor on outsource contractual
basis through manpower deployment agency ICSIL/
respondent no.2.
37. It is submitted that there is no employer/ employee
relationship between workman and respondent no.1,
therefore, present dispute is not an industrial dispute within
the meaning of Industrial Dispute Act. It is argued that in
view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
“Uma Rani vs Registrar Co-Operative Society as reported in
(2004) 6 SCC 112 as well as case titled as Secretary, State of
Karnataka vs Uma Rani, the present claim is not maintainable.
38. As far as question that honorarium given to workman is
concerned, in “Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya Vs District
Development Officer, Dahod & Others (2022) 16 SCC 242″ ,
Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 91 observed as under:
91. Learned counsel for the State has given
much stress on the honorarium paid to the
Aganwari workers/helpers. Suffice it to say that
the honorarium is basically the quantum of
money offered/conferred to somebody who is
especially a professional or a well honoured
person for providing services. It is a voluntary Digitally signedprocess. However, what is being paid to GAUTAM MANAN
by GAUTAMMANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:50:08 +0530Award 17 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
Aganwari workers/helpers with a nomenclature
used by the respondents in projecting the term
‘honorarium’, is in fact the ‘wages’ that has been
paid for the services rendered at the end of the
month. It is the form of emoluments which is
being earned on discharge of duty in accordance
with the terms of employment defined under
Section 2(s) of the Act 1972.
39. In view of above authoritative judgment, contention of
respondent no.1 that since the workman was employed in a
voluntary service by paying on honorarium as such, workman
cannot be considered to be working on wages, stands
rejected.
40. It is further argued by the respondent no.1 that in view of the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ” Uma Rani vs
Registrar Co-Operative Society as reported in (2004) 6 SCC 112
as well as case titled as Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma
Rani, the present claim is not maintainable.
41. Recently in “Govt. NCT of Delhi through Directorate of Family
Welfare Versus Nisha & Others, LPA 530/2024” 2024 SCC
OnLine Del 5149 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
24. The learned Single Judge while passing the
impugned order has relied upon on a decision of
this Court in the case of Project Dir. Dep.of
Rural Development v. Its Workman, 2019 SCC
OnLine Del 7796 against which SLP (C) Dy.
No. 34164/2019 was dismissed by the Supreme Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
Court vide order dated 14.10.2019, thereby this GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:50:13 +0530
Award 18 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
Court’s decision attained finality.
25. This Court in Project Director (supra), in the
facts and situation before it where the Rajya
Sanik Board had recommended names of
registered ex-servicemen to be appointed as
caretakers of community centres, and pursuant
to their initial appointment on contractual basis
in 1997, had been in uninterrupted service for
almost 22 years, then concluded as under:
Thus, in the light of the observations of the
Supreme Court in Ajaypal Singh (supra),
ONGC (supra) and Umrala Gram Panchayat
(supra) as also of this Court in Ram Singh
(supra), I find that the petitioner’s reliance on
the decision of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi
(supra) and of this Court in Anil Lamba (supra)
is wholly misconceived. In my opinion, once
the Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner
was indulging in unfair labour practice, it was
well within its domain to pass an order directing
the petitioner to regularize the respondents”
services. The petitioner has failed to make out
any ground to interfere with the discretion
exercised by the Industrial Tribunal in directing
the petitioners to regularize the services of the
respondents/workmen. There is no gainsaying
that the writ jurisdiction and powers of
superintendence of this Court have to be
exercised only sparingly to ensure that the
subordinate courts do not exceed their own
jurisdiction and exercise it as and when
required, or when there has been a manifest
failure of justice, or when the principles of
natural justice have been flouted. In my opinion,
no such eventuality has occurred in the present
case so as to warrant the exercise of powers of
this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution.” Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:50:18 +0530Award 19 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
26. In view of above, the learned Single Judge
has opined that the relief seeking under the writ
jurisdiction the appellant introduced new
aspects of evidence, which they chose not to
lead before the learned Industrial Tribunal.
Notwithstanding, the only argument is relating
to the “temporary nature of appointment” in a
project/mission under the RHC of these ANMs.
It is not disputed, however, they had been
consistently engaged since 2000- 2001 and have
spent around 23 to 24 odd years in the same
service of providing midwife care in various
hospitals.
27. Though the contractual services cannot be
regularized but in the project the respondents
are continuously working for more than 23-24
years, they cannot be kept engaged on
contractual basis throughout in service life. This
type of practice amounts to exploiting the poor
and needy person which cannot be accepted.
42. Vide orders dated 10.02.2025, passed in SLP No.
57566/2024, in case titled as “Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Nisha
& Ors.” Hon’ble Apex Court declined to interfere with the
above order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
43. Moreover, Hon’ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in
L.P.A. No. 720/2024 titled as “Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs.
Pradeep Rana & Ors“, rejected the contention of the
management that regularizing workman would lead to
seniority disputes, financial burden, and was against the
principles laid down in the Umadevi (supra). The Hon’ble
Division Bench has categorically held that the Umadevi GAUTAM
Digitally
signed by
GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:50:24
+0530Award 20 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
Doctrine would operate only in writ forums and not in
industrial adjudications.
44. In view of above authoritative judgments, it stands already
settled that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) pertains to
service law matters and not to issues before Industrial
Tribunals which are empowered to look into unfair labor
practices under the scope and purview of the Industrial
Disputes Act and other attendant legislation. Hence, the
present dispute which deals with dispute related to jobs, pay,
and working conditions of workman, is maintainable before
Industrial Tribunal.
Issue No.3: Whether the claimant has no locus-standi to file
the claim petition against management no.2. (OPM 2).
45.It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no.2 that the
workman has got no locus-standi to file the present claim
since the workman was appointed on purely contractual basis
for fixed period w.e.f the date of joining till the end of the
contract/work order awarded to respondent no. 2 by the
Department.
46. In Adarsh Gujrat Aganwari Union Vs State of Gujrat & Others,
vide order dated 02.08.2024 in R/Special Civil Application No.
8164 of 2015, Hon’ble Gujrat High Court, held as under:
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:50:30 +0530Award 21 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
28. A conjoint reading of the observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maniben
Maganbhai Bhariya (supra) and Dipika Jagatram
Sahani (supra) would lead to a clear declaration
emerging from the said decisions that the Central
and the State Governments are under a statutory
obligation to provide for nutritional support to
pregnant women, lactating mothers and to children
upto the age of 14 years, more particularly for the
purpose of the present case between age group of
6 months to 6 years. The said obligation flowing
from Sections 4 to 6 of the National Food Security
Act, 2013. The State is statutorily obliged to
provide for free education to children between 3
years to 6 years as per Section 11 of the RTE Act.
The National Food Security Act, 2013 statutorily
recognizes Aganwari centres. The State is
fulfilling its statutory obligations under both the
National Food Security Act, 2013 and the RTE
Act, through the Aganwari centres which are
manned by AWWs and AWHs. Thus, as observed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maniben
Maganbhai Bhariya (supra), AWWs and AWHs
are employed on statutory posts.
47.As held in above stated judgment that Aganwari Workers and
Supervisors are employed on statutory posts, therefore, claim
of the workman to enforce her rights as against the
Department and management no.2 who claims to be the
company through which the workman was appointed cannot
be discarded. Accordingly, the issue stands answered against
management no.2 and in favor of the workman.
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
MANAN
GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:50:35
+0530
Award 22 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 "Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
Issue No.4: As per terms of reference?
48. Now, the question to be analyzed and answered is whether
the services of workman were terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management in violation of section 33(1)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
49.The undisputed facts are that the workman worked with
management as Aganwari worker from 31.10.2005.
Subsequently, without any break in service, she joined as
Aganwari Supervisor with respondent no.1 on 20.07.2016.
Thereafter, her services as Aganwari Supervisor was
discontinued from 01.10.2017. However, following an order
from Hon’ble High Court, workman was again employed on
the post of Aganwari worker vide order of engagement dated
27.02.2020 as Ex. M1W1/4.
50.MW1 Nafees Ahmad, Deputy Director of respondent no.1 in
his affidavit in para 6 has stated as under:
6. “That in absence of regular incumbents, the
Department of Women & Child Development,
GNCTD in the year 2016 had proposed to
engage Aganwari Supervisors on contract basis
for a specific period to be outsourced from
Intelligent Communication Systems India
Limited (ICSIL) which is a Public Sector
undertaking and a joint venture of
Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd.
(TCIL), A Govt. of India Enterprises under Digitally
signed by
Ministry of Communications and Delhi State GAUTAM
GAUTAM
MANAN
Industrial & Infrastructure Development MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:50:40
+0530Award 23 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
Corporation Ltd. (DSIIDC), an undertaking of
Govt. of NCT of Delhi is an empanelled
government agency to outsource contractual
manpower to various departments and
establishments of Government of NCT of Delhi.
It is submitted that the Claimant on her choice,
withdrew from the post of Aganwari Worker
upon being short-listed for the post of
contractual Supervisor by M/s Intelligent
Communication Systems India Ltd (ICSIL) and
was placed with the Department of Women &
Child Development, Government of NCT of
Delhi to work on purely contractual and
outsourced basis under ICDS. She was paid
monthly remuneration and the last drawn
remuneration was Rs. 17,862/-. The services of
the claimant as Aganwari Supervisor were
discontinued w.e.f. 01.10.2017 following
completion of selection process of Aganwari
Supervisors on regular basis by Delhi
Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB)
and upon receiving of the dossiers of selected
candidates and subsequently joining of new
incumbents in the Department. This was done as
per the settled legal position by the apex court
in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka
Vs. Uma Devi (Supreme Court -2006). Copy of
the letter for discontinuation of services of
outsourced Supervisors issued by ICSIL on
25.09.2017 is being exhibited as Exhibit
MW1/1.”
51.Though MW1 in his examination-in-chief stated that after the
recruitment of Aganwari Supervisors through DSSSB, the
services of workman was terminated, however, the witness
failed to answer as to how many Aganwari supervisors were
Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2025.08.06
22:50:45 +0530
Award 24 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
terminated by the Department and how many were taken on
regular job through that process.
52.MW1 admitted that some Aganwari Supervisors are working
with the Department who were directly taken on contract by it
and not through respondent no.2. Through response dated
03.08.2023 given by respondent no.1 to an RTI application, it
has come on record that as on 01.08.2023, there are 231
vacant post of Supervisor Grade-II with respondent no. 1. No
explanation has been given by respondent no. 1 that why
these posts are still kept vacant despite the availability of the
workman and similarly placed manpower who have already
worked with respondent no. 1 as supervisors.
53.It is evident that the workman is working with the
management continuously for almost 12 years. It is not
disputed that workman was also appointed as Aganwari
Supervisor after clearing a written examination and an
interview held by Officials of respondent no. 1 and
management has already engaged workman at the post of
Aganwari Supervisor.
54. There is no dispute about the fact that the workman has been
discharging the duties of Aganwari Supervisor. The
management has more than 231 vacant sanctioned posts of
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:50:52 +0530Award 25 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
Aganwari Supervisor in its establishment. Even though the
workman was stated to be engaged on contract basis,
however, management failed to show as to why it had to
resort to hiring workers as such despite it being a permanent
and perennial nature of work.
55.It has come on record that workman was appointed against
the vacant post of Aganwari Supervisor. It is also not the
contention of management that the workman did not fulfill
the requisite qualifications for the post at the time of her
initial appointment. It is difficult of comprehend as to why
despite having the requisite qualifications and vacancies
available for the post of Aganwari Supervisor, the workman
was disengaged.
56.In “Deen Bandu Garg & Others Vs South Delhi Muncipal
Corporation & Others, WP (C) 11693/2019″, decided on
16.04.2025, Hon’ble High Court regularized the service of the
workmen by holding that:
(i) the applicants have rendered continuous and uninterrupted
service for the MCD for decades except, in some cases, for
temporary summer vacation breaks,
(ii) they are working as teachers, so that their work is
perennial and their need continuous,
Digitally signed
(iii) they were appointed against sanctioned posts, GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:50:57
+0530
Award 26 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 "Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
(iv) they were appointed after a due process of selection,
following an advertisement, which required the applicants to
possess all essential qualifications for the post, and satisfy the
age stipulations, and
(v) they are directly employed under the MCD and are under
their supervision.
57. In the present case also the following facts emerge:
a) Workman has rendered continuous and uninterrupted
service for almost 12 years.
b) Workman has performed the permanent and perennial
nature of work as a Aganwari Supervisor.
c) At the time when workman was appointed, there were
vacant posts of Aganwari Supervisor were available with the
management and still there are about 231 vacant posts of
Aganwari Supervisor.
d) There is nothing on record to indicate that the workman
does not fulfill qualifications for the job.
e) During the course of the employment, the services of
workman were found to be satisfactory and there was no
complaint against her.
58. The Industrial Disputes Act at Item No. 10 of Fifth Schedule
outlines Unfair Labour Practice as “to employ workmen as
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:51:04 +0530
Award 27 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
badlies, casual temporaries, and to continue them as such for
years with the object of depriving them of the status and
privileges of permanent workmen.” Such practice is not only
prohibited under Section 25T but also punishable under
Section 25U of Industrial Disputes Act.
59.Industrial Tribunals have a duty to examine the reasons/
justification recorded by the management for appointing
workers on a temporary basis and assess these reasons in
accordance with the Industrial Dispute Act. Engaging workers
for permanent and perennial work and treating them as
casual/muster roll/contract/daily wager/temporary workers
without recorded reasons will act against the management and
suggest an element of unfair labor practice, as it exploits the
services of workers without providing them their due wages,
and no justifiable reasons have been recorded by
management.
60. It is submitted on behalf of the management that workman
herself agreed to work on the post of Aganwari Worker and
now she cannot agitate her claim again. Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli and Ors vs State of UP.,
(1986)1 SCC 637 held that employees, especially those in low-
wages categories, often have no choice but to accept
employment under exploitative terms offered by the employer Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:51:10
+0530Award 28 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
due to the prevailing conditions of unemployment and their
socio-economic background. The fact that these employees
accepted employment with full knowledge of the terms does
not absolve the government or the employer from the
mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution, which implies equal pay for work of equal
value.
61. Similarly, in the Officer Incharge Defence Standardization Cell
vs Mukesh Kumar, 2013(4)SC T108 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court emphasized that the employer cannot use contract
stipulations as a tool of exploitation. Their unilateral
imposition of oppressive and unreasonable conditions of
service, which the workman has little choice but to accept,
cannot be justified.
62.In view of the admitted position and the material on record,
this Tribunal holds that the management has clearly
committed an unfair labour practice as enumerated in Item
No. 10 of the Fifth Schedule read with Section 2(ra) of the
Industrial Disputes Act by employing the workman against
the sanctioned vacant post of Aganwari Supervisor but
treating her merely as a contractual employee for performing
the permanent nature of work of a Aganwari Supervisor.
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:51:15 +0530Award 29 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 “Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr“
63.In industrial adjudications, where the employer has kept the
permanent posts unfilled and indulged in the unfair labour
practice of keeping workmen on a temporary basis over
prolonged periods of time, the statutory power of the
industrial adjudicator to grant relief to the workmen,
including the status of permanency, continues, in such a case,
Industrial Tribunal has the power to pass an order for
regularization of the workman.
64.In “Jaggo Vs Union of India & Others, SLP (C ) 5580/2024,”
Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
27. In light of these considerations, in our
opinion, it is imperative for government
departments to lead by example in providing fair
and stable employment. Engaging workers on a
temporary basis for extended periods, especially
when their roles are integral to the organization’s
functioning, not only contravenes international
labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale. By ensuring fair employment
practices, government institutions can reduce the
burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job
security, and uphold the principles of justice and
fairness that they are meant to embody. This
approach aligns with international standards and
sets a positive precedent for the private sector to
follow, thereby contributing to the overall
betterment of labour practices in the country.
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:51:21 +0530
Award 30 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 "Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
65.Workman has given sustained contribution to the
management, first as a Aganwari Worker, then as a Aganwari
Supervisor and again as Aganwari Worker. There is no
adverse remark against her, as such, she warrants equitable
treatment and regularization of her services. Denial of this
benefit, followed by her arbitrary termination, amounts to
manifest injustice and as held in above authoritative judgment
makes workman entitled to continue to be in service of
management no.1 on the post of Aganwari Supervisor.
Relief
66. In view of the above findings, the order of dis-engagement of
workman Priyanka W/o Sh. Yogesh Sharma, dated
25.09.2017 stands set-aside. It is directed that management
no.1 shall take the workman back on duty at the post of
Aganwari Supervisor and her services shall be regularized
from 20.07.2016 that is the date she was appointed as
Aganwari Supervisor.
Workman shall not be entitled to any pecuniary
benefits/back wages for the period she has worked as
Aganwari Supervisor, but she would be entitled to continuity
of services for the said period and the same would be counted
for her post-retiral benefits.
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:51:27 +0530
Award 31 of 32
ID No: 169/2018 "Priyanka Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
Management No.1 shall implement the award within 60
days of its publication. The reference is answered
accordingly. Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate
Government for publication.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 5th August 2025.
Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2025.08.06
22:51:33 +0530
GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI
Award 32 of 32