Delhi District Court
Chaman Singh And Mali vs Ndmc on 20 August, 2025
ID No. 1005/2017 'Chaman Vs. NDMC"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
ID No. 1005/2017
CNR No. DLCT13-004808-2017
Sh. Chaman Singh
S/o Late Sh. Virender Singh ,
As represented by
Municipal Employees Union,
Agarwal Bhawan, G. T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi - 110054. ..... Workman
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
through its Commissioner (North),
Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre,
J.L. Nehru Marg,
New Delhi-110002 .... Management
Date of institution 14.03.2017
Order reserved on 17.04.2017
Date of Award 20.08.2025
AWARD
1.
Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital
Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute for adjudication
to this Tribunal vide notification No. F.24(103)/17/Ref./
CD/429/1196 dated 27.04.2017 with following terms of the
reference:
Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2025.08.20
20:30:49 +0530Award 1 of 15
ID No. 1005/2017 ‘Chaman Vs. NDMC“
Whether the workmen Sh. Daya Chand S/o Late
Sh. Khemchand and Sh. Chaman Singh S/o Late
Sh. Virender Singh are entitled for appointment
on compassionate ground on the post of Mali on
regular and permanent basis (instead of contract
basis) in proper pay scale and allowances with
retrospective effect from the date of death of their
father or from the date of their respective joining
along with consequential benefits, monetary or
otherwise and if so, to what relied are they
entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect?
Statement of Claim
2. Present claim is filed by workman Chaman. It is the claim of
workman Chaman that his father Sh. Virender Singh (since
deceased) was in the employment of management as Mali.
Sh. Virender Singh unfortunately expired on 18.04.2007.
After the death of his father, workman applied for his
appointment on compassionate ground and was given
appointment in October, 2009 on compassionate ground on
the post of Mali.
3. It is stated that instead of giving workman appointment on
regular and permanent basis in the regular pay scale,
workman was given appointment on contract basis. To claim
regularization, a demand notice dated 03.06.2016 was served
upon the management through registered AD post but the
notice was neither replied nor complied by the management.
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.20
20:31:00 +0530Award 2 of 15
ID No. 1005/2017 ‘Chaman Vs. NDMC“
4. It is stated that conciliation proceedings initiated by the
workman also failed. Workman by way of present dispute is
seeking his appointment on compassionate ground on the post
of Mali on regular and permanent basis (instead of on
contract basis) in proper pay scale an allowances with
retrospective effect from the date of death of his father or
from the date of his respective joining along with all
consequential benefits. He is also claiming cost of litigation
as provided in Section 11 (7) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Written Statement
5. It is submitted on behalf of management that present dispute
is not an industrial dispute, as it is not espoused by the Union.
Management stated no demand notice has been served upon
the management. It is also submitted that Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the workman challenging
the validity and legality of recruitment rules and policy of
appointment on compassionate ground.
6. Management further stated that as per the rules and
regulations laid down by the Govt. of India for the
appointment on compassionate ground there is a limited quota
of 5% and there is a huge back log waiting for such
appointments. It is submitted that the Municipal Employees
Union has no locus standi to raise the present dispute and the
Digitally signed
Union is not a recognized union of the management. GAUTAM MANAN
by GAUTAM
MANAN Date:
2025.08.20
20:31:08 +0530Award 3 of 15
ID No. 1005/2017 ‘Chaman Vs. NDMC“
7. On merits, it is stated that the workman never applied for
appointment on compassionate ground on regular or
permanent basis and as such consideration of the workman
for the same does not arise at all. Management has sought
dismissal of the claim.
Rejoinder
8. In rejoinder to written statement, workman denied all
objections raised in the preliminary objections and reiterated
the contentions made in the statement of claim.
Issues
9. On 15.03.2018 on the basis of pleadings of the parties,
following issues were framed:
1) Whether the present claim of the workmen has been
properly espoused by the Union?
2) Whether the claim of claimants for appointment on
compassionate ground is not covered under the provision of
Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act?
3) As per the terms of reference.
4) Relief.
Workman’s Evidence
10. To prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1. He
tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit and relied upon
Digitally signed
documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/6. Workman also
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.20
20:31:15 +0530Award 4 of 15
ID No. 1005/2017 ‘Chaman Vs. NDMC“
examined Sh. Pardeep Kumar Kaushik, Secretary, Municipal
Employees Union as WW-2 who tendered his evidence by
way of an affidavit and relied upon the resolution of espousal
as Ex.WW1/4.
11.Workman was cross-examined by the AR for the
management, wherein he confirmed that he was appointed on
contract basis in continuity.
Management’s Evidence
12. To prove its defence, management examined MW1 Keshav
Lal, Deputy Director, Horticulture Department, who tendered
his evidence by way of affidavit. He relied upon documents
Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/3.
13. In his cross-examination, MW1 admitted the appointment of
the workmen Virender Singh and his unfortunate death. He
admitted that the nature of work, working hours, and
responsibilities of the claimants and their counterparts who
are treated as regular and permanent Mali and paid their
salary in regular pay scale is same and identical.
14. Final arguments have been heard at length as advanced by Sh.
N. Bhushan, Ld. AR for workman and Sh. Vivek Chandra,
Ld. AR for Management. Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
MANAN
GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.08.20
20:31:23
+0530
Award 5 of 15
ID No. 1005/2017 'Chaman Vs. NDMC"
15. I have gone through the entire records of the case including
pleadings of the parties, evidence led and documents proved
during evidence.
Analysis and Discussion
Issue No.1: Whether the present claim of the workmen has
been properly espoused by the Union.
16.Management has taken an objection in its written statement
that the present dispute is not an industrial dispute as the
same is not properly espoused by the union.
17. In order to prove the espousal, workman examined WW2
Pardeep Kumar Kaushik, Secretary, Municipal Employees
Union who deposed that the union espoused the cause of the
workman and he also relied upon document Ex. WW1/4 a
resolution for raising the cause of workman.
18. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Omji Srivastava and Ors. vs.
P.W.D./C.P.W.D., 2023/DHC/002013 decided on 17.03.2023,
wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court after relying upon the
case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.H. Jadhav v. M/s Forbes
Gokak Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1089 of 2005, decided on
11.02.2005 has observed that there is no strict format required
for a union espousing the cause of the workman, and this can
vary and may also include resolutions or other forms of
evidence depending on the case to case. Even in the absence GAUTAM byMANAN
Digitally signed
GAUTAM
MANAN Date:
2025.08.20
20:31:30 +0530Award 6 of 15
ID No. 1005/2017 ‘Chaman Vs. NDMC“
of formal resolution, the court relied upon various documents
such as statement of claim filed before the conciliation
officer, legal demand notice, authorization letters etc. among
other documents and held that the cause of the workman have
been properly espoused by the Union.
19. Also, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pratap
Singh & Anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, WP(C) No.
676/2013 vide order dated 04.02.2013 reversed the findings of
the Ld. Labour Court on the issue of espousal by categorizing
it as hypertechnical and held that the cause of the workman is
properly espoused by the union.
20. Perusal of record reflects that, statement of claim (Ex.
WW1/3) was filed before the Conciliation Officer by the
Municipal Employees Union. The resolution dated
19.05.2016 i.e. Ex. WW1/4, wherein the Union decided to
raise an industrial dispute in favour of the workman has also
been placed on record. Accordingly, it is held that the cause
of the workman has been properly espoused by the Municipal
Employees Union. The issue stands decided in favour of the
workman and against the management.
Issue No.2:Whether the claim of claimants for appointment on
compassionate ground is not covered under the provision of
Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act? Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
MANAN
GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.08.20
20:31:37
+0530
Award 7 of 15
ID No. 1005/2017 'Chaman Vs. NDMC"
21.Management has taken the objection that the workman is not
covered under the definition of workman as given in Section
2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2 (s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act is reproduced as follows:-
“Workman” means any person (including an
apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,
operational, clerical or supervisor 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(45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46
of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 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.) Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.20
20:31:47 +0530Award 8 of 15
ID No. 1005/2017 ‘Chaman Vs. NDMC“
22. This is a case where the workman has already been taken on
duties as Mali. The job of Mali is categorized as un-skilled or
semi skilled. Therefore, the nature of work performed by the
claimant falls under the definition of Section 2 (s) of the ID
Act. Thus, it comes under the purview of industrial dispute
and claimant is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of
the I.D. Act. Hence, the issue no. 2 is decided in favor of the
workman and against the management.
Issue No.3: As per the terms of reference.
23. After perusal of the record it emerges that Sh. Virender Singh,
the father of Sh. Chaman Singh passed away on 18.04.2007.
Consequent to which, workman was given appointment on
compassionate ground since October, 2009 on the vacant post
of Mali in place of his father vide order dated 03.09.2009 and
offer of appointment letter dated 04.08.2009 as Ex. MW1/1.
He is working continuously and uninterruptedly with the
management since his initial date of appointment.
24. Ld. AR for the workman in order to substantiate his claim
placed reliance upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court
passed in Ravi Karan Singh vs. State of U.P. and Ors., C.M.W.P. No.
39127 wherein it was held that the appointments made on
compassionate grounds will be treated as regular and
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.20
20:31:54 +0530
Award 9 of 15
ID No. 1005/2017 'Chaman Vs. NDMC"
permanent appointments because treating them as temporary
appointments would defeat the very purpose of such
appointments. It is because the same is intended to provide
immediate relief to the family on the sudden death of the
bread earner. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced
below:
“2. In our opinion, an appointment under the
Dying-in-Harness Rules has to be treated as a
permanent appointment otherwise if such
appointment Is treated to be a temporary
appointment, then it will follow that soon after
the appointment, the service can be terminated
and this will nullify the very purpose of the
Dying-in-Harness Rules because such
appointment is intended to provide immediate
relief to the family on the sudden death of the
bread earner. We, therefore, hold that the
appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules is a
permanent appointment and not a temporary
appointment, and hence the provisions of U. P.
Temporary Government Servant (Termination of
Services) Rules. 1975 will not apply to such
appointments.”
25. Despite being eligible for the appointment on compassionate
grounds after the demise of his father Sh. Virender Singh,
workman was given appointment by the management in the
form of contractual employment, instead of regular
employment. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sushma
Gosain and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 1989 SC
1976″, held that it is improper to keep cases of compassionate
Digitally
appointments pending for years. It was further held that in GAUTAM
signed by
GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.20
20:32:02
+0530Award 10 of 15
ID No. 1005/2017 ‘Chaman Vs. NDMC“
cases where the posts are unavailable then the management is
supposed to create a post to accommodate the applicant.
26. AR for the workman has submitted that the management has
committed unfair labour practice as enumerated in Section 2
(ra) read with item 10 of Fifth Schedule of the Industrial
Disputes Act and further submitted that employing workman
as muster roll employee and denying him the salary and status
of a regular employee amounts to unfair labour practice. He
placed his reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court titled as Chief Conservator of Forest and Anr., (1996) 2
SCC 293) and the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court titled
as Project Dir. Dep. Of Rural Development v. Its Workmen, 2019
SCC On Line Del 7796. Workman was working continuously
and uninterrupted for the past 16 long years with the
management.
27. In view of settled law, there can be no doubt that Tribunal has
a power to regularize the services of the workman in the light
of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Chief
Conservator of Forest and Anr. (supra) and the judgment of
Hon’ble Delhi High Court titled as Project D ir. Dep. O f
Rural Development v. Its Workmen, (supra). Thus, argument of
the management that the Tribunal does not have the
jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the workman challenging
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
MANAN
GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.08.20
20:32:10
+0530
Award 11 of 15
ID No. 1005/2017 'Chaman Vs. NDMC"
the validity and legality of recruitment rules and policy of
appointment on compassionate ground is misplaced in law.
28. It is argued on behalf of management that Tribunal has no
power to create a new right and liability upon the employer.
In this regard, Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bidi, Bidi Leaves’ and Tobacco Merchants
Association vs. The State of Bombay, Civil Appeals Nos. 415
to 418 of 1960 decided on 15.11.1961 has held that the tribunal
has the power to create new rights and liabilities upon the
employer. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced
below:
“15. It is well settled that industrial adjudication
under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act 14 of 1947 is given wide powers and
jurisdiction to make appropriate awards in
determining industrial disputes brought before
it. An award made in an Industrial adjudication
may impose new obligations on the employer in
the interest of social justice and with a view to
secure peace and harmony between the
employer and his workmen and full co-operation
between them. Such an award may even alter the
terms of employment if it is thought fit and
necessary to do so. In deciding industrial
disputes the jurisdiction of the tribunal is not
confined to the administration of justice in
accordance with the law of Contract. As
Mukherjea, J., as he then was, has observed in
Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of the
Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi the tribunal “can
confer rights and privileges on either party Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
which it considers reasonable and proper, though GAUTAM MANAN
Date:
MANAN
they may not be within the terms of any existing 2025.08.20
20:32:18
+0530Award 12 of 15
ID No. 1005/2017 ‘Chaman Vs. NDMC“
agreement. It has not merely to interpret or give
effect to the contractual rights and obligations
between them which it considers essential for
keeping industrial peace”. Since the decision of
the Federal Court in Western India Automobile
Association v. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay it has
been repeatedly held that the jurisdiction of
Industrial Tribunals is much wider and can be
reasonably exercised in deciding industrial
disputes with the object of keeping industrial
peace and progress (Vide: Rohtas Industries,
Ltd. v. Brijnandan Pandey, Patna Electric
Supply Co. Ltd.,Patna v. Patna Electric Supply
Workers’ Union ).”
29. Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “DDA v.
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal” L.P.A. No. 384/2008
decided on 29.01.2009 has also held that a dispute relating to
compassionate appointment can be the subject matter of an
industrial dispute and the Industrial Tribunal has the power to
direct the management to make appointment on
compassionate ground.
30. In view of the above judgment, argument of the management
that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the
claim of the workman challenging the validity and legality of
recruitment rules and policy of appointment on
compassionate ground is misplaced in law.
31. From the facts narrated above, it is concluded that
management has clearly committed unfair labour practice by
employing workman since October 2009 on contractual basis and Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
Date:
MANAN 2025.08.20
20:32:26
+0530Award 13 of 15
ID No. 1005/2017 ‘Chaman Vs. NDMC“
continued with him for years with the object of depriving him
the status and privileges of a regular and permanent
employee.
32. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Ravi Karan
(supra), workman is entitled to be appointed by the
management on compassionate grounds since October 2009
as a permanent appointment. Hence, the demand of the
workman for appointment on compassionate ground on a
regular basis instead of contractual employee with
retrospective effect w.e.f. his initial date of appointment is
legal and justified. Thus, issue no. 3 is decided in favour of
the workman and against the management.
Relief
33. In view of foregoing findings on the issue no.3, workman
Chaman Singh S/o Late Sh. Virender Singh is entitled for
appointment on compassionate ground as regular employee
on the post of “Mali” instead of contractual employee with
retrospective effect w.e.f. his initial appointment i.e. October
2009 in regular pay scale with all consequential benefits.
Management is directed to implement the said award within
30 days of its publication failing which entire dues shall be
paid to workman with an interest @ 8% per annum from the
date of reference i.e. 27.04.2017 till the final payments are
Digitally signed
made. GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN 20:32:37
Date: 2025.08.20
+0530
Award 14 of 15
ID No. 1005/2017 ‘Chaman Vs. NDMC“
The terms of reference is decided in favour of the workman
and against the management. The award is passed
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 20th August, 2025.
Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2025.08.20
20:32:53 +0530GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHIAward 15 of 15