Delhi District Court
Satbir vs M/S North Delhi Municipal Corportion on 23 July, 2025
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMC
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
POIT No. 314/2019
CNR No. DLCT13-001379-2019
Sh. Satbir
S/o Sh. Daya Nand,
Village- Bamnoli,
Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Haryana,
Gurugram, Haryana.
As represented by
General Secretary,
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, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002. .... Management
Date of institution 13.03.2019
Order reserved on 11.07.2025
Dare of Award 23.07.2025
AWARD
1.
Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of
Delhi has referred this dispute vide
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.07.23
21:11:04 +0530Award 1 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMCF.24/(29)/19/Ref/CD/Lab/114 dated 01.03.2019 for
adjudication with following terms of the reference:
“Whether demand of Sh. Satbir S/o Shri Daya
Nand, Aged about 51 years for regularization on
the post of Driver with retrospective effect from
his respective date of joining into the
employment along with payment of entire
difference of wages on the “Principle of Equal
Pay for Equal Work” with all consequential
benefits thereof is justified and if so, what
directions are necessary in this respect?”
Statement of Claim
2. Workman stated that he joined into the employment of the
management aforesaid w.e.f. 23.08.1996. He was taken in job
as a daily rated/muster roll worker and were paid wages as
fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum
Wages Act, while his counterparts doing the identical work
and the work of same value but who were being treated as
regular employees are being paid their salary in proper pay
scale and allowances.
3. It is stated that workman is continuously discharging his
services with the management aforesaid since the date of his
initial appointment. He has unblemished and uninterrupted
record of service to his credit. Although, the workman
aforesaid is supposed to be regularized since his initial date of
joining but the management has only regularized him
Digitally signed
w.e.f.01.04.2004. by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.07.23
21:11:11 +0530Award 2 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMC
3. It is submitted that non-regularization of services of the
workman since his initial dates of joining on the post of
Drivers in proper pay-scale and allowances and non-payment
of difference of salary on the principle of equal pay for equal
work with all arrears thereof is totally illegal, bad, unjust and
malafide and amounting to unfair labour practice and
amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in Section 2 (ra)
read with Item No.10 of Fifth Schedule and read with Section
25 T punishable under Section 25 U of the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947.
4. It is averred that workman acquired the status of permanent
employees outright from the respective date of his joining
after completing 90 days of continuous service as prescribed
in the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial
Employment Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Even otherwise,
after completion of 240 days of continuous employment on
regular basis as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in “ONGC Itd. Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and
Ors. (2015) IILJ 257SC”.
5. It is submitted that employing persons on regular nature of
jobs and treating him as a monthly paid/ muster roll workers
and paying them lesser remuneration that those doing the
identical work and the work of same value amounts to unfair
Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2025.07.23
21:11:18 +0530
Award 3 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMC
labour practice as provided in Section 2(ra) read with Item
No. 10 of Fifth Schedule and read with Section 25 T
punishable under section 25 U of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947 as held by the Supreme Court of India in this Matter of
“Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. The Secretary, Municipal Employee
Union and Ors” (2015) II LLJ 403 SC, “ONGC Itd. Vs. Petroleum
Coal labour Union and Ors. (2015) IILJ 257 SC”, and “Simens
Limited and Anr. Vs. Siemens Employees Union and Anr. (2011)9
SSC 775”.
6. It is stated that workman has been meted out with hostile
discrimination as juniors to him has been regularized in
service in proper pay scale and allowances since his initial
dates of joining but the workman aforesaid has been
completely ignored in this matter and in this regard a demand
notice was served upon the management by registered A.D.
post vide communication dated 06.12.2017, which was duly
received in their office, but no reply has been received, and it
is presumed that the demand has been rejected. Thereafter,
conciliation proceedings were also initiated, but same resulted
into failure due to adamant and non-co-operative attitude of
the management.
7. Workman has prayed that an Award be made in favour of the
workman and the management be directed to regularize the
services of the workman aforesaid on the post of Driver with
Digitally
signed by
GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.07.23
21:11:31
+0530Award 4 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMCretrospective effect from his respective initial dates of joining
into the employment and to pay him entire difference of
salary on the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” from
his initial joining till 31.03.2004 and all consequential
benefits thereof. Cost of litigation has also been prayed for.
Written Statement
8. In the written statement, management has stated that present
dispute is highly time-barred because workman has been
working with the management since 01.04.2004 on regular
basis however, he raised the present issue for the first time in
the year 2019 i.e. after 15 years. The present dispute in view
of the settled position of law deserves to be dismissed, being
stale and hopelessly time-barred.
9. It is submitted that management has its own policy of
regularization i.e. Phased manner Regularization Policy and
the replying management regularizes its Daily Wager/Muster
Roll Employee as per availability of the Post and Funds, that
too strictly as per their seniority and workman cannot claim
for their regularization from the initial date of engagement
along with consequential benefits as a matter of right.
10. It is further submitted that no worker/daily wager in the MCD
has ever been regularized from the initial date of engagement
as a daily wager. It is further submitted that the services of
Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2025.07.23
21:12:38 +0530
Award 5 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMC
each workman(whether on regular basis or on temporary
basis) engaged in Municipal Corporation, is regulated under
Delhi Municipal Corporation Service Regulations, 1959, As
per the regulations framed under Delhi Municipal
Corporation service regulation, 1959, and the Central Civil
Services (Conduct)Rules, 1955: and includes orders issued
there under by the Central Government or the instructions
issued by the comptroller and Auditor General of India from
time to time: are applicable to each category of Municipal
employee. Further, as per section 13-B of the Industrial
Employment (standing Orders) Act, 1946, the Act has no
application on certain industrial establishments.
11. It is stated that no worker/daily wager in the MCD has ever
been regularized from the initial date of engagement as a
Daily Wager and the regularization policy of the management
has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of
MCD Vs Gauri Shankar & Ors. 1999 V AD(DELHI) 905 and in
the case of Mehtab Singh & Ors Vs GNCTD (CWP No.
7847/2000, CWP NO. 5181/2001 and CWP NO. 7848/2000).
12. It is stated that present case is not maintainable in view of the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Uma Rani vs.
Registrar Cooperative Societies (2004) 7 SCC 112 as well as the
case titled as Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi. Other
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
MANAN
GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.07.23
21:12:48
+0530
Award 6 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMC
averments made in the statement of claim have been denied
and dismissal of the claim has been prayed for.
Issues
13.On 03.03.2022, on the basis of pleadings of the parties,
following issues were framed:
1. Whether the present dispute has been properly espoused by
the Union? OPW
2. Whether the present dispute suffers from delay, if so, its
effect? OPW
3. As per terms of reference.
4. Relief.
Workman’s Evidence
14.In order to prove his entitlement, workman examined himself
as WW1 and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit
Ex.WW1/A. He deposed on the lines of his claim. Workman
proved the following documents:
1. Copy of demand notice dated 06.12.2017 as Ex. WW1/1.
2. Copy of Postal Receipt as Ex. WW-1/2.
3.Copy of Statement of claim filed by workman before the
Conciliation Officer as Ex.WW-1/3.
4. Copy of Espousal Ex. WW-1/4.
5. Copy of Office Order dated 23.08.1996, 31.05.2005 &
02.06.2005 & 28.05.2005 of management as Ex. WW1/5-8.
Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2025.07.23
21:12:55 +0530
Award 7 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMC
6. Copy of Resolutions dated 05.01.1967 and dated
20.11.1978 as Ex. WW1/9 & 10.
Management’s Evidence
15. Management examined MW1 Dr. Saurabh Mishra, Deputy
Health Officer, Karol Bagh Zone, MCD.
16.Final arguments have been heard at length as advanced by
both the parties. I have gone through the documents,
pleadings as well as arguments of parties.
Analysis and Discussion
Issue No.1: Whether the present dispute has been properly
espoused by the Union? OPW
17. Management has taken an objection that the present dispute is
not an industrial dispute as the same is not properly espoused
by the union. In order to prove the proper espousal, workman
proved the minutes of meeting dated 20.11.2017 as
Ex.WW1/4 in which resolution for raising the cause of
workman was passed.
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
Digitally
11.02.2005 has observed that there is no strict format required GAUTAM
signed by
GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.07.23
21:13:02
+0530Award 8 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMCfor 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
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 hyper technical and held that the cause of the workman is
properly espoused by the union.
20. In present case, a statement of claim ( Ex. WW1/1) was filed
before the Conciliation Officer by the Municipal Employees
Union. The resolution dated 20.11.2017 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. Even
the legal demand notice Ex. WW1/1 was sent on the letter
head of the Union. MW1 during his cross-examination
specifically deposed that he cannot point out any deficiency
in the document Ex. WW1/4. Therefore, in view of the above
Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2025.07.23
21:13:09 +0530Award 9 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMCdocuments, there are no reasons to cast doubt on the espousal
passed by the Municipal Employees Union for raising an
industrial dispute in favour of the workman. As such, it is
held that the cause of the workman has been properly
espoused by the Municipal Employees Union. Accordingly,
issue stands decided in favour of the workman and against the
management.
Issue No.2: Whether the present dispute suffers from delay, if
so, its effect? OPW
21.No doubt that the workman was regularized in service in year
2004 and he has raised the present dispute in year 2017
seeking his regularization from his initial engagement from
23.08.1996. There seems to be substantial delay in raising the
present dispute but the fact remains that workman is still in
service and as such, his right to seek retrospective
regularization still exists.
22.In Raghubir Singh Vs General Manager, Haryana Roadways,
2014 (10) SCC 301, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“31. The rejection of the reference by the Labour
Court by answering the additional issue no. 2
regarding the delay latches and limitation without
adjudicating the points of dispute referred to it on
the merits amounts to failure to exercise its
statutory power under Section 11A of the Act. Digitally signed
Therefore, we have to interfere with the impugned by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
award of the Labour Court and the judgment & MANAN Date:
2025.07.23
21:13:16 +0530Award 10 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMCorder of the High Court as it has erroneously
confirmed the award of the Labour Court without
examining the relevant provisions of the Act and
decisions of this Court referred to supra on the
relevant issue regarding the limitation..”
23.In the light of above authoritative judgment, the claim of
workman is required to be adjudged on merits rather to reject
it on ground of delay and latches, especially when the
workman is still under employment of management.
Issue No.3: As per terms of reference?
24.The question to be decided is as to whether demand of the
workman for regularization on the post of Driver with
retrospective effect is justified or not. It is not in dispute that
the services of the workman was regularized on 01.04.2004,
however, workman is demanding that his service be
regularized from date of his joining the employment i.e. w.e.f.
23.08.1996.
25. Management has submitted that in Secretary, State of
Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, appeal (civil) 3595-
3612 of 1999, and Uma Rani vs. Registrar Co-operative Society
as reported in (2004) 7 SCC 112, it was held that regularization
is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any State
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India
or any body or authority governed by a statutory Act or the
Rules framed thereunder. Regularization furthermore cannot Digitally
signed by
GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
give permanence to an employee whose services are ad-hoc MANAN Date:
2025.07.23
21:13:26
+0530Award 11 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMCin nature. It was also held that the fact that some persons had
been working for a long time would not mean that they had
acquired a right for regularization.
26. It is also argued that the management has its own policy of
regularization i.e. phase manner regularization policy and the
management regularizes its daily wage muster roll-employees
as per availability of the posts and funds and the said policy
was upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in MCD vs. Gauri
Shankar & Ors., WPC No. 601/1997 dated 31.08.1999 and MCD
vs. Brij Mohan, WPC No. 17932/2004 dated 27.10.2005.
27. In “Deen Bandu Garg & Others Vs South Delhi Muncipal
Corporation & Others, WP (C) 11693/2019″, Hon’ble Delhi
High Court has held as under:
37.4 At the cost of reiteration, we deem it
appropriate to once again state that Uma Devi
does not hold, at any point of the judgment, that
employees who satisfied the stipulated
educational and experience qualifications and
age requirement, who applied in response to an
open advertisement, and who were subjected to
a regular selection process in which all
applicants were dispassionately evaluated, and
who continued for several years, or decades,
without complaint, against posts which were
sanctioned, have no right to seek regularisation,
and can be terminated at any point of time.
Jaggo holds that the manner in which Uma Devi
has been interpreted and applied over the course
of time has resulted in weaponization of the Digitally signed
judgment. In our view, accepting the stand that
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN
Date:
2025.07.23
21:13:34 +0530Award 12 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMCthe MCD seeks to canvas in these petitions,
would not only weaponize, but would in fact
demonize, Uma Devi.
28.In above noted authoritative decision, Hon’ble Delhi High
Court has observed that the employees who satisfy the
stipulated qualifications for the service and who continue for
several years, or decades, without complaint, against posts
which were sanctioned, have a right to seek regularisation,
and the judgment of “Uma Devi” does not affect right of such
employees. Hence, the reliance of the management on the
judgment of “Uma Devi” (supra) to argue that this Industrial
Tribunal does not have the power to regularise the services of
the workman concerned is misplaced in law.
29.Now, coming to the factual matrix of this case, the service
particulars of the workman i.e. his date of joining, designation
and date of regularization are not disputed, and the same were
also admitted by the management witness during his cross-
examination.
30. It is also established that the workman was working against
the sanctioned vacant post of Driver since the beginning till
date. Meaning thereby, there remains no controversy to the
fact that the posts of Drivers were available at the time of his
initial engagement by the management, which is why the Digitally
signed by
GAUTAM
workman was appointed against the sanctioned post of Driver
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.07.23
21:13:42
+0530Award 13 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMCand worked as such till date. It is also established that despite
performing the same work as being performed by the regular
and permanent Driver both pre and post regularization, the
workman was given minimum wages. The said wages are
lesser in comparison to what was being paid to the regular
Driver working with the management.
31.There is no dispute about the fact that the workman was
discharging the duties of Driver from his initial date of
joining and till date. Management has permanent sanctioned
posts of Driver in its establishment which suggests that the
work of driver is permanent and perennial in nature. Even
though the workman was stated to be engaged on a muster-
roll/daily wage 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.
32.Though the management has contended in its written
statement as well as evidence of MW1 about phase manner
policy of regularization, however, no such regularization
policy applicable to Drivers have been placed on record.
Management has submitted that the services of the workman
were regularized in accordance with the policy, and granting
him regularization w.e.f. his initial date of joining will
eventually disturb the seniority of other workers and
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.07.23
21:13:50 +0530Award 14 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMCindustrial peace in the establishment of the management but
no policy pertaining to regularization of Drivers has been
placed on record by the management.
33.Management, neither in its written statement nor during the
course of the proceedings, has provided any reasons as to
why it resorted to appointing the workman on a daily-wages
basis in 1996, especially when the work of a Driver is
permanent and perennial in nature, and he was appointed
against a sanctioned vacant post from the very beginning.
Management has also failed to provide any basis for how the
cut-off date of 01.04.2004 was determined with respect to the
concerned workman. In the absence of a clear basis, such an
action of the management reeks of arbitrariness, as the seven
years of service of the workman were eaten away without any
justification whatsoever.
34.Management has also argued that the workman has duly
accepted his regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2004 out of his free
will with all the terms and conditions without any protest,
therefore, at this stage he cannot retract from his acceptance
and claim regularization on the post of Driver w.e.f. his initial
date of joining. This tribunal does not find any consensus
with this argument of the management. Merely because the
workmen has “consented” to his regularization on the post of
Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2025.07.23
21:13:57 +0530
Award 15 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMC
Driver w.e.f. 01.04.2004, that does not give the license to the
management to indulge in unfair labour practices.
35. 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,
(iii) they were appointed against sanctioned posts,
(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.
36.In the present case it stands proved that:
a) Workman has rendered continuous and uninterrupted
service for the MCD.
b) Workman is performing the permanent and perennial
Digitally signed
nature of work as a Driver. GAUTAM
by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.07.23
21:14:04 +0530Award 16 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMC
c) Office order Ex WW1/5 establishes that he was appointed
against sanctioned post.
d) There is nothing on record to indicate that the workman
does not fulfill qualifications for the job rather he was
regularized by the management w.e.f 01.04.2004.
37.In view of above discussions, it is held that the workman is
entitled to regularization in service on the post of Driver
w.e.f. 23.08.1996 in the regular pay scale with all
consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise. As far
as the question of equal pay for equal work is concerned,
since the workman is performing the same work as being
performed by his regular counterparts and there was no
change in his work, working hours, roles, and responsibilities
both pre and post-regularization, this Tribunal holds that he is
entitled to the difference in wages on the principle of equal
pay for equal work for the period 23.08.1996 to 31.03.2004.
Issue no. 3 is answered accordingly.
Relief
38. In view of the above findings, it is held that the workman
Satbir S/o Sh. Daya Nand is entitled to regularization in
service on the post of Driver w.e.f. 23.08.1996 in the regular
pay scale with all consequential benefits, either monetary or
otherwise. He is further entitled to the difference in wages on
Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2025.07.23
21:14:13 +0530
Award 17 of 18
POIT No: 314/2019 Satbir Vs EDMC
the principle of equal pay for equal work for the period
23.08.1996 to 31.03.2004.
Management is directed to implement the award within
60 days of its publication failing which the management will
be liable to pay an interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date
of terms of reference i.e. 01.03.2019 till its realization. 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 23rd July, 2025.
Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2025.07.23
21:14:21 +0530
GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI
Award 18 of 18
[ad_1]
Source link