Delhi District Court
Jagbir vs Ndmc on 13 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANJUSHA WADHWA:
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
F.24 (88)/18/Ref/CD/Lab./383
Dated: 20.03.2019
POIT NO.: 495/2019
Workman:
Sh. Jagbir
S/o Late Sh. Ram Pat,
R/o H.No. 31/612, Rohini, Sector-20,
MCD Flats, Near Pooth Kalan,
Delhi-110086.
Mobile No. 9210664569,
Aadhar Card No. 40376826178.
Working as Safai Karamchari
in DEMS Departments, Ward No (new) 62,
Old Ward No. 55, Shalimar Bagh,
Keshav Puram Zone, Delhi, NDMC.
Through:
General Secretary,
Municipal Employees Union (Regd. No. 793),
Agarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari,
Delhi - 110054.
Vs.
The Management of :
M/s North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg,
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 1/24
New Delhi-110002.
[through its Commissioner (North)]
Date of Institution : 01.06.2019
Date of Arguments : 11.05.2026
Date of Award : 13.05.2026
AWAR D
1. The Labour Department, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi has
referred the dispute arising between the parties named above for adjudication
to this tribunal with following terms of reference:
"Whether the demand for regularization of services of Sh.
Jagbir S/o Late Sh. Ram Pat, Age about 51 years on the post
of Safai Karamchari with retrospective effect from his
respective initial date of joining into the employment i.e.
01.01.1984 till 31.03.1989 alongwith payment of entire
difference of salary 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. The workman filed a statement of claim stating that he joined the
management w.e.f. 01.01.1984 as a daily-rated/muster-roll worker and was
paid fixed wages under the Minimum Wages Act, while his counterparts
performing identical work were treated as regular employees and received
salaries in the proper pay scale with allowances. His service record remained
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 2/24
unblemished and uninterrupted. However, his services were regularized
w.e.f. 01.04.1989.
3. The workman alleged that the non-regularisation of his services since his
initial date of joining as a Safai Karamchari in the proper pay scale and
allowances, and the non-payment of the salary difference on the principle of
"equal pay for equal work," along with all arrears, are completely illegal,
unjust, and mala fide, and constitute an unfair labour practice.
4. It is further stated that a demand notice dated 17.03.2018 was also served
on the management, which was duly received, but no action was taken.
Thereafter, conciliation proceedings also failed due to the management's
non-cooperative attitude. Therefore, the present dispute was referred to
this Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
5. The management filed a written statement raising preliminary objections,
contending that the present dispute is not an industrial dispute, as it is not
espoused by a union, and that no valid demand notice was served on the
management. They also argued that the reference has been made
mechanically without proper application of the mind.
6. It is further stated that the management has its own policy of
regularization, known as the Phase Manner Regularization Policy, and
the management regularizes its daily wager muster roll employees based
on the availability of posts and funds, strictly according to their seniority.
It is also stated that the claimant's claim is liable to be dismissed, as he
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 3/24
was paid all wages in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act, and
nothing is owed to him.
7. Vide order dated 21.03.2024, the following issues were framed by the
learned predecessor of this Tribunal as:-
(1) As per terms of reference? OPW
(2) Whether the present dispute has not been properly espoused
by any Union? OPW
(3) Relief.
8. To prove the case, the workman has examined himself as WW1 and
closed the evidence. On the other side, the management has examined Sh.
Sanjay Chauhan, Administrative Officer, DEMS, Keshavpuram Zone,
MCD as MW1 and closed the evidence.
9. The issue-wise finding is given in the following paragraphs.
Issue No.2 : Whether the present dispute has not been properly espoused
by any Union? OPW
10. The onus to prove this issue was on the workman. Ld. AR for the
management contended that the present dispute has not been properly
espoused by any union. On the other side, Ld. AR for the workman
submitted that the workman is a member of the Municipal Employees
Union, and that the said union has espoused the workman's grievance.
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 4/24
11. In order to give jurisdiction to the appropriate government to refer the
dispute to the Tribunal/Labour Court, it was essential for the workman to
show that his individual dispute was sponsored or espoused by the union
of the workmen.
12. The constitution bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Workmen
of Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) Vs. Dharampal Premchand
(Saughandhi) Civil Appeal No.532/1963 has held as under:-
"3. Section 2(k) defines an "industrial dispute" as meaning
any dispute or difference between employers and employees,
or between employers and workmen, or between workmen
and workmen, which is connected with the employment or
nonemployment or the terms of employment or with the
condition of labour, of any person. This definition shows that
before any dispute raised by any person can be said to be an
industrial dispute, it must be shown that it is connected with
the employment or non-employment of that person. This
condition is satisfied in the present case, because the dispute
is in relation to the dismissal of 18 workmen, and in that
sense, it does relate either to their employment or non-
employment. The question however, still remains whether it
is a dispute between employers and workmen. Literally
construed, this definition may take within its sweep a dispute
between a single workman and his employer, because the
plural, in the context, will include the singular. Besides, in the
present case, the dispute is in fact between 18 workmen on
the one hand, and their employer on the other, and that
satisfies the requirement imposed by the fact that the word
"workmen" in the context is used in the plural. But the
decisions of this Court have consistently taken the view that
in order that dispute between a single employee and his
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 5/24
employer should be validly referred under s. 10 of the Act, it
is necessary that it should have been taken up by the Union to
which the employee belongs or by a number of employees.
On this view, a dispute between an employer and a single
employee cannot, by itself, be treated as an industrial dispute,
unless it is sponsored or espoused by the Union of workmen
or by a number of workmen. In other words, if a workman is
dismissed by his employer and the dismissed workman's case
is that his dismissal is wrongful, he can legitimately have the
said dispute referred for adjudication before an Industrial
Tribunal under s. 10(1) of the Act, provided a claim for such
a reference is supported either by the Union to which he
belongs or by a number of workmen, vide Central Provinces
Transport Services v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan
MANU/SC/0067/1956 : (1957) ILLJ 27 SC and The
Newspapers Ltd. v. The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P.
MANU/SC/0078/1957 : (1957) IILLJ 1 SC."
13. In the present case, the workman has deposed in his evidence by way of
affidavit (Ex. WW1/A) that he is a member of the Municipal Employees
Union and his membership no. is 55111, and that he has been paying a
subscription to the union. He further stated that he approached the
Municipal Employees Union for redressal of his grievance regarding the
regularisation and payment of the salary difference on the principle of
"Equal Pay for Equal Work", which resulted in the passing of a resolution
dated 02.03.2018 to raise his industrial dispute. He further stated that the
said resolution was passed and signed by Sh. Surender Bhardwaj,
Secretary of the Union, in his presence.
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 6/24
14. The workman has relied upon the legal demand notice dated 17.03.2018,
Ex. WW1/1, postal receipt Ex. WW1/2, Statement of Claim before the
Conciliation Officer Ex. WW1/3, and the resolution dated 02.03.2018 Ex.
WW1/4, whereby the Union decided to espouse the dispute of the
workman.
15. Perusal of the resolution Ex. WW1/4 shows that the Municipal
Employees Union resolved to take up the cause of the workman. On that
basis, the Union issued the legal demand notice Ex. WW1/1 and filed the
claim petition before the Conciliation Officer. Since the dispute remained
unresolved, the Appropriate Government referred it for adjudication. It is
settled law that there is no prescribed format for espousal. Reliance is
placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.M. Jhadav vs.
Forbes Gokak Ltd., (2005) 3 SCC 202, wherein it was held as:
"............As far as espousal is concerned there is no
particular form prescribed to effect such espousal. Doubtless,
the Union must normally express itself in the form of a
resolution which should be proved if it is in issue. However
proof of support by the Union may also be available aliunde.
It would depend upon the facts of each case. The Tribunal had
addressed its mind to the question, appreciated the evidence
both oral and documentary and found that the Union had
espoused the appellant's cause. ........."
16. During cross-examination, WW1 denied the suggestion that he is not a
member of the Municipal Union, that no meeting took place or that his
claim is not properly espoused by the union.
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 7/24
17. Pertinently, the Municipal Employees Union is a recognised union, and
the said union has not come forward to claim that it has not espoused the
cause of the workman. In view of the above, the management's contention
that the workman is not a member of the Union and that the present
dispute was not properly espoused by the Union has not been proved on
record. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the workman and
against the management
Issue No.1 : As per terms of reference?OPW
18. The terms of reference in the present case concern the regularisation of
the services of the workman on the post of Safai Karamchari from his
initial date of joining employment, i.e., 01.01.1984, along with payment
of the entire difference of salary on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal
Work, along with all consequential benefits thereof
SUBMISSIONS OF THE WORKMAN
19. The Learned AR for the workman has contended that the workman was
appointed by the management on 01.01.1984 as a Safai Karamchari and
was working continuously and uninterruptedly and was performing the
permanent and perennial nature of work, but his services were treated as
muster roll employee till he was regularized on 31.03.1989.
20. It is his further submission that the workman has been discharging the
same duties from the date of his initial joining as being discharged by his
regular counterparts and as such, the workman is entitled to the same
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 8/24
service conditions and salary on the principle of "equal pay for equal
work". Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Union of India & Ors.
vs. Rajesh Kumar Gond, JT 2013 (15) SC 1860; Union of India vs.
Dineshan K.K., AIR 2008 SC 1026 and Dhirender Chamoli & Anr. vs.
State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637.
21. It is further submitted that action of the management in employing the
aforesaid workman as casual or temporary and to continue him as such
for years together with the object of depriving him of the status and
privileges of permanent workmen amounts to unfair labour practice as
provided in Section 2(ra) read with Item No. 10 of the 5th Schedule of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 25T punishable under
Section 25U of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE MANAGEMENT
22. Ld. AR for the management submitted that regularisation is a prerogative
of the employer and that, as a policy matter, his regularisation will be
subject to the availability of posts and funds.
23. It is further submitted that the workman's claim for "Equal Pay for Equal
Work" for the period of service spent as a daily wager is not maintainable
in view of the judgments in the cases titled State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer
Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77, and Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi
(2006) 4 SCC 1.
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 9/24
24. Though no issue on delay and latches was framed, Ld. AR for the
management submitted that the present statement of claim is barred by
delay and latches. It is his contention that the workman joined the
management's employment w.e.f. 01.01.1984 as a Safai Karmchari and
was regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1989, however, he raised the present issue
for the first time in the year 2019, i.e. after about 30 years.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
25. It is admitted by the parties that the workman joined the management's
services on 01.01.1984 as a Safai Karamchari and that his services were
regularised only on 01.04.1989. During cross-examination, MW-1
admitted that the workman has been working continuously from
01.01.1984 to date. He further admitted that the management had
regularised his services w.e.f. 01.04.1989. He further admitted that the
work and conduct of the workman are satisfactory, and that the nature of
the Safai Karamchari's work is permanent. He further admitted that the
working hours and the nature of the work of the workman, both pre- and
post-regularisation, are the same and identical.
26. From the testimony of MW-1, it is clear that the nature of work of the
Safai Karamchari post is permanent and that the management intended to
utilise the services of the workman on a permanent basis. In his affidavit,
the workman stated that since joining, he has been performing duties of
the same nature as those of his regular counterparts. During cross-
examination, he deposed that several juniors, including Santosh, w/o Late
Sh. Raj Kapoor, etc., have been regularised by the management since
their initial date of joining. He denied the suggestion that no such junior
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 10/24
has been regularised by the management. He further denied the
suggestion that no such employee has been paid a higher salary for
performing the same Safai Karamchari work as he does.
27. The question for consideration is whether the regularization of the
concerned workman from 01.04.1989 instead of 01.01.1984 amounts to
an unfair labour practice. Unfair labour practice, as defined u/s 2(ra),
means any of the practices specified in the 5th Schedule of the ID Act. As
per item no. 10 of the said V Schedule, to employ workmen as Badlis,
casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the
object of depriving them of the status and privilege of permanent
workmen, amounts to an unfair labour practice.
28. The management contended that it follows a phased policy of
regularisation and regularises its employees based on the availability of
posts and funds. During cross-examination, MW-1 produced a copy of
the regularisation policy as Ex.MW1/W1. The said policy, issued vide
Urgent Business No. 212 Mark A, records that the Municipal
Corporation, vide Resolution No. 709 dated 20.11.1978, laid down a
scheme to regularise persons engaged on daily wages/muster roll on
maintenance or regular nature of work in a phased manner, and that
regularisation shall take effect from the first day of the financial year in
which it is carried out.
29. Regarding the validity of the aforementioned policy, the management
has brought this Tribunal's attention to the judgment of MCD Vs Gauri
Shankar 1999(51)DRJ127, in which the regularisation policy by M.C.D.
was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In the said case, the
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 11/24
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi approved the regularisation of a Mali/Beldar
who was initially engaged in 1983 and regularised in 1989, in accordance
with the policy. Simultaneously, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the
granting of wages equal to those of regular employees for the pre-
regularisation period, thereby affirming that adherence to policy must not
undermine the principle of equal pay for equal work. It was observed that
regularisation cannot be granted from the date of initial appointment, as
this would entail presumptions that (a) a permanent post existed on the
date of initial engagement, and (b) that the workman was duly selected
through a properly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with
recruitment rules.
30. The management has also relied on the judgment of Secretary, State of
Karnataka, vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that persons in temporary or casual employment cannot claim
regularisation merely based on the length of service, and that such
regularisation would amount to creating an impermissible mode of public
appointment bypassing constitutional requirements. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, however, clarified in paragraph 44 that where persons
have been irregularly (as opposed to illegally) appointed in duly
sanctioned vacant posts and have worked for ten years or more, the State
should, as a one-time measure, take steps to regularise their services
within six months and ensure that regular recruitment is undertaken
thereafter.
31. In Sheo Narain Nagar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 13 SCC 432,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Uma Devi (Supra) has not been
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 12/24
properly understood and has been wrongly applied by various State
Governments. It was further noted that although incumbents should be
appointed regularly in accordance with the rules, a new method of making
appointments on a contract basis has been adopted, employment is often
offered on a daily wage basis, and other exploitative practices are in use.
It was further observed that the main purpose of Uma Devi (Supra) was
to ensure that employment is obtained through fair means and not via
back-door entry, within the prescribed pay scale. That purpose has been
ignored and conveniently overlooked by various State Governments and
authorities, who are using it merely as a tool to prevent the regularisation
of incumbents' services.
32. In Dharam Singh v. State of UP 2025 SCC Online SC 1735 , the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that where the nature of work is perennial, and the State
itself acknowledges the need for a regular workforce, an arbitrary refusal
to sanction posts cannot be sustained. The relevant paragraphs are
reproduced hereinunder as:-
"9. Moreover, it is undisputed that the nature of work
performed by the appellants, i.e. sorting and scrutiny of
applications, dispatch and office support, and driving, has
been continuous and integral to the Commission's
functioning since their engagement between 1989 and
1992. The Commission itself moved for sanction of fourteen
posts and furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers including
the appellants. That consistent internal demand, coupled with
uninterrupted utilization of the appellants' labour on regular
office hours, fortifies the conclusion that the duties are
perennial. To continue extracting such work for decades
while pleading want of sanctioned strength is a position that
cannot be sustained.
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 13/24
11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance
placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non- suit
the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the
challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the
constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge
to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the
employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of
continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other
hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal
appointments and irregular engagements and does not
endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where
the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for
years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court
in Jaggo v. Union of India and in Shripal and Anr vs Nagar
Nigam, have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra)
cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through
long-term "ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or
the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted
over extended periods. The principles articulated therein
apply with full force to the present case."
33. Having regard to the totality of the above, while the principles in Sheo
Narain Nagar (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra) reinforce the workman's
entitlement to fair treatment, they do not override the fundamental legal
requirement that regularisation must be against a sanctioned post and
where the work is of a perennial nature, the said post must have been
created by the State.
34. In the present case, during cross-examination on 30.10.2025, MW-1
deposed that he could provide information on the Safai Karamchari post
lying vacant as on date after checking the record, but he would not be
able to do so for 1984, as there was a division of MCD into three parts.
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 14/24
He deposed that MCD does not have any data regarding the Safai
Karamchari vacancy for the year 1984. Upon specifically being asked to
bring the vacancy record for 1984, he deposed that he would check the
records, and his cross-examination was deferred for that purpose.
However, on the next date, he gave the same reply that the record was not
available. He admitted the possibility that, as of 1984, a large number of
regular and permanent Safai Karamchari posts were vacant. He denied
the suggestion that the record was available with management, but he
deliberately and intentionally did not place it before the Court, as it would
have shown that a large number of Safai Karamchari posts were vacant
in 1984.
35. Normally, an adverse inference should be drawn against the management
for failing to produce the records of vacancies in 1984; the delay of about
30 years cannot be overlooked, as the workman was regularised as a Safai
Karmchari w.e.f. 01.04.1989, however, he raised the present issue for the
first time in 2019.
36. Ld. AR for the workman stated that the management's plea of delay and
latches cannot be considered, as the management has not raised any such
objection in its written statement. She relied upon section 10(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and submitted that, as per the said section,
the appropriate government 'at any time' may refer an industrial dispute
for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such an industrial dispute
between the workman and the employer exists or is apprehended.
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 15/24
37. The word "at any time" has been interpreted in Sapan Kumar Pandit vs
U.P. State Electricity Board And Ors 2001 (6) SCC 222, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"........The words at any time as used in the section are
prima facie indicator to a period without boundary. But such
an interpretation making the power unending would be
pedantic. There is inherent evidence in this sub-section itself
to indicate that the time has some circumscription. The words
where the Government is of opinion that any industrial
dispute exists or is apprehended have to be read in
conjunction with the words at any time. They are, in a way,
complimentary to each other. The Governments power to
refer an industrial dispute for adjudication has thus one
limitation of time and that is, it can be done only so long as
the dispute exists. In other words, the period envisaged by
the enduring expression at any time terminates with the
eclipse of the industrial dispute. It, therefore, means that if
the dispute existed on the day when the reference was made
by the Government it is idle to ascertain the number of years
which elapsed since the commencement of the dispute to
determine whether the delay would have extinguished the
power of the Government to make the reference.
Hence the real test is, was the industrial dispute in existence
on the date of reference for adjudication? If the answer is in
the negative then the Governments power to make a
reference would have extinguished. On the other hand, if the
answer is in positive terms the Government could have
exercised the power whatever be the range of the period
which lapsed since the inception of the dispute. That apart, a
decision of the government in this regard cannot be listed on
the possibility of what another party would think whether
any dispute existed or not. The section indicates that if in the
opinion of the Government the dispute existed then the
Government could make the reference. The only authority
which can form such an opinion is the government. If the
government decides to make the reference there is a
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 16/24
presumption that in the opinion of the government there
existed such a dispute."
38. The words 'at any time' were again interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Raghubir Singh v. Gen. Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar
2014 (10) SCC 301, where the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
"13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in
raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court
nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At
the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour
Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute
ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its
statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer
the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to
either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as
interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to
supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised
its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the
points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in
accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon
Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra."
39. In Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Another
reported as (2015) 15 SCC1, Dr. Prabhakar, whose employment was
terminated in 1985, raised a dispute fourteen years later in 1999, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding the fact that the law
of limitation does not apply, it is for the workman to show that there is a
dispute in praesenti.
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 17/24
40. In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing
Service Society Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 82, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
as under:
"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article
137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 are not
applicable to the proceedings under the Act and that the relief
under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the
ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is
required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real
prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No
reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on
the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay is
shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board,
dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by
declining to grant back wages to the Workman till the date he
raised the demand regarding his illegal
retrenchment/termination or dismissal. The Court may also in
appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages
instead of full back wages..........
11. In the instant case, the respondent management is not
shown to have taken any plea regarding delay as is evident from the issues framed by the Labour Court. The only plea raised in defence was that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference and the termination of the services of the workman was justified. Had this plea been raised, the workman would have been in a position to show the circumstances preventing him in approaching the Court at an earlier stage or even to satisfy the Court that such a plea was not sustainable after the reference was made by the Government. The learned Judges of the High Court, therefore, were not justified in holding that the workman had not given any explanation as to why the demand notice had been issued after a long period. The findings of facts returned by the High Court in writ proceedings, even without pleadings were, therefore, unjustified..............."
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 18/2441. The conspectus of the aforesaid judgments is that where the plea of delay is raised by the employer, it is incumbent upon him to show what real prejudice has been caused on account of such delay and even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the Workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissal.
42. Ld. AR for the workman has also relied upon the judgment in U.P. State Electricity Board and Anr Vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.2003 SCC Online All 1969, in which the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad held that delay is not fatal to the case of regularization, as only a declaration regarding the date of regularisation and the benefits accruing therefrom was sought. The said judgment relied upon by the workman is clearly distinguishable on facts, as in that case the employee was entitled to claim regularisation in terms of the Board Order dated 12.10.1971 upon completion of three years of continuous service in the post of Operator Grade-I. The limited controversy before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was regarding the ascertainment of the correct date on which the workman completed three years of continuous service and consequently became entitled to regularisation under the existing Board policy. The workman in that case claimed that he ought to have been absorbed in the post of Operator Grade-I w.e.f. 01.04.1970 instead of 01.03.1973. Thus, it was essentially a dispute over the date from which regularisation was to take effect, in accordance with an admitted policy POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 19/24 applicable to the employee. Hence, the aforesaid judgment does not assist the workman in the facts of the present case.
43. On the other side, Ld. AR for the management has placed reliance on Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak Vs Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Civil Appeal No. 4134 of 2002) decided on 18.05.2022 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in which, after nearly seven years, the writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 28.10.2010 whereby the higher pay scales of the promotional post granted to them were withdrawn. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that, while employees were entitled to higher pay scales, their claims for long-standing arrears were limited to three years prior to the filing of their petition due to delay and laches.
44. In the present case, the management has not raised any objection of delay and latches in the written statement, and thus, no issue has been framed in this regard. The management has taken the plea of delay and latches for the first time in the evidence by way of an affidavit filed by MW-1. The management witness has not pleaded any prejudice in his affidavit; however, during cross-examination, he failed to produce the vacancy status for Safai Kararmchari for 1984, stating that the said record is unavailable due to the restructuring of the MCD. Needless to say, the workman is expected to raise his grievance within a reasonable period of time; a period of 30 years for raising the grievance cannot be considered reasonable. Therefore, the management cannot be faulted for failing to produce the vacancy record for 1984, and no adverse inference can be drawn against it.
POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 20/2445. In the absence of data on the vacant sanctioned posts, it is difficult to hold that the workman was appointed as a daily wager w.e.f. 01.01.1984, despite the existence of a vacant post. The workman has also claimed a difference in salary, based on the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work', from his date of joining.
46. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017)11SCC148 has authoritatively settled that individuals performing identical duties cannot be discriminated against in terms of pay merely on account of their employment status, whether temporary, contractual, or daily wage, when they discharge the same functions as regular employees.
47. The principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is also squarely covered by the findings in MCD v. Gauri Shankar (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court, while declining to backdate regularisation, specifically upheld the grant of wages at par with regular employees even for the pre- regularisation period.
48. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case titled Indu Munshi and Ors. vs UOI And Ors. AIR Online 2018 Del 360 has followed the aforementioned decision of Jagjit Singh(supra) and held that the "contract teachers" were appointed against regular vacancies, their services have been continuous, and their appointments were made following a constitutionally recognized and accepted process of advertisement and calling names from employment exchanges; each of them possessed and continues to possess the necessary qualifications, including B.ed.; each was interviewed before appointment, therefore, POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 21/24 considering their uninterrupted employment for over two decades, these Kashmiri migrant teachers are entitled to be treated as regular appointees and are also entitled to benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, and pension upon reaching the age of superannuation.
49. In Shripal & anr. versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 INSC 144 (Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024 decided on 31.01.2025), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles similar to those of permanent employees and performed the same tasks (planting, pruning, general upkeep) of regular Gardeners but still receive inadequate and inconsistent compensation, constituting an unfair labour practice by the Respondent Employer.
50. In the present case, the duties and responsibilities performed by the workman were the same as those performed by regular employees. The management does not contend that the workman lacked the qualifications prescribed for regular appointment. Having regard to the fact that the workman was discharging work of a similar nature to that of regular workmen during the aforesaid period, he is therefore entitled to wages at par with regular Safai Karamcharis for the period prior to his regularisation.
51. In view of the non-availability of data regarding vacant sanctioned posts for the year 1984, the delay of nearly 30 years in raising the grievance, it cannot be conclusively held that the workman was initially appointed against a vacant sanctioned post. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheo Narain Nagar(supra) vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Dharam Singh POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 22/24 v. State of UP(supra) deprecated the practice of continuing employees for long years on temporary or daily wage basis while extracting perennial work, the said judgments also recognise that regularisation cannot ordinarily be directed in the absence of sanctioned vacant posts. No cogent material has been placed on record to establish the availability of sanctioned vacant posts in the year 1984. Consequently, the workman cannot be granted regularisation from the date of his initial engagement i.e. 01.01.1984.
52. At the same time, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the workman continuously discharged duties identical in nature to those performed by regular Safai Karamcharis and that the nature of work was perennial and permanent. In view of the law laid down in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh(supra), MCD Vs Gauri Shankar(supra) and Shripal & Anr. versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad(supra), the workman is held entitled to wages at par with regular Safai Karamcharis for the pre-regularisation period from 01.01.1984 till 31.03.1989 on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work".
53. Nevertheless, considering the unexplained and inordinate delay of about 30 years in espousing the dispute and applying the principles relating to delay and laches as laid down in Prabhakar vs Joint Director, Sericulture Department(supra), Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak Vs Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation(supra) and Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd.(supra), the said monetary benefits shall not be payable to the workman as it stands restricted to three years prior to raising the grievance. Issue no.1 is POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 23/24 accordingly decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
Issue No.3 : Relief.
54. In view of the findings returned hereinabove, the claim of the workman for regularisation on the post of Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 01.01.1984 is declined. However, it is held that the workman was entitled to wages at par with regular Safai Karamcharis for the period from 01.01.1984 till 31.03.1989 on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work". Nevertheless, considering the inordinate and unexplained delay of about 30 years in raising the present industrial dispute, no monetary arrears or consequential financial benefits arising out of the aforesaid declaration shall be payable to the workman.
55. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of the Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication as per law.
56. The file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed MANJUSHA by MANJUSHA WADHWA WADHWA Date: 2026.05.13 04:29:56 +0530 Announced in open Tribunal (MANJUSHA WADHWA) on 13.05.2026 Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-1 Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi POIT- 495/2019 Page No. 24/24