Delhi District Court
Chand vs Edmc on 19 March, 2026
POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHARAD GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
POIT No. 241/2018
CNR No. DLCT13-004014-2018
Sh. Sri Chand
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Shaye,
R/o H. No.313, Street No.2,
Tahir Pur,
Delhi-110095
Represented by General Secretary,
Municipal Employees Union,
Agarwal Bhawan, G. T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi - 110054. ..... Workman
Versus
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
through Its Commissioner (East)
Udyog Sadan, 2nd Floor,
Plot No.419,
Patparganj Industrial Area,
Delhi-110002. .... Management
Date of institution 12.11.2018
Order reserved on 24.02.2026
Dare of Award 19.03.2026
AWARD
1.Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute vide Notification Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.19 16:03:42 +0530 Award 1 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC No.F.24/(74)/E/Lab./17/3280 dated 31.07.2018 for adjudication with following terms of the reference:
"Whether the demand of the workmen Sh. Sri Chand & 2 Ors. (As per Annexure-A) for regularized on the post of Driver with retrospective effect from their respective initial dates of joining into the employment and to pay them entire difference of salary on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" from their initial dates of joining till regularization and all consequential benefits thereof, is legal and justified; and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
Statement of Claim
2. Workman stated that he joined into the employment of the management w.e.f. 07.06.1995. He was taken in job as daily rated/muster roll worker and was 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 and are being paid their salary in proper pay scale and allowances. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2003 and workman has unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to his credit.
3. It is submitted that non-regularization of services of the workman since his initial date of joining on the post of Driver Digitally signed by SHARAD in proper pay scale and allowances and non-payment of SHARAD GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2026.03.19 16:03:49 +0530 Award 2 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC difference of salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work with all arrears thereof is totally illegal, bad, unjust and malafide.
4. It is submitted that employing persons on regular nature of jobs and treating them as a monthly paid/ muster roll workers and paying them lesser remuneration than those doing the identical work and the work of same value 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 as held by the Supreme Court of India in the 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".
5. It is averred that workman acquired the status of permanent employee outright from his initial date of 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 the workman is entitled to be employed on regular basis as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "ONGC Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.19 16:03:56 +0530 Award 3 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC Itd. Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Ors. (2015) IILJ 257 SC".
6. It is stated that management has not framed any rules for regularization nor got it passed by the UPSC and nor notified in the official Gazette for governing the service conditions of the so called muster roll/part-time/seasonal workers nor it has any certified standing orders, governing service conditions of such workers and, therefore, the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are applicable to the workman and the management.
7. It is stated that the workman has been meted out with hostile discrimination as juniors to him have been regularized in service in proper pay scale and allowances since their initial date of joining but the workman has been completely ignored in this regard.
8. It is stated that a demand notice was served upon the management by registered A.D. post vide communication dated 26.10.2017, 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 Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19 16:04:03 +0530 Award 4 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC due to adamant and non-co-operative attitude of the management.
9. Workman has prayed that an Award be made in his favour and the management be directed to regularize the services of the workman on the post of Driver with retrospective effect from the initial date of his joining into the employment with all consequential benefits thereof either monetary or non- monetary and with all arrears thereof on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work". Cost of litigation has also been prayed for.
Written Statement
10.In the written statement, management has stated that the present dispute is not properly espoused by the union and no demand notice has been served upon the management.
11.It is submitted that management has its own policy of regularization i.e. in the Phased manner and availability of funds and posts and workman cannot claim for regularization from initial date of engagement.
12.It is further submitted that the claim of the workman for regularization as well as for "equal pay for equal work" is not maintainable in view of the judgment passed in case titled as Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19 16:04:10 +0530 Award 5 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77 and MCD Vs. POIT-II 2000 II AD (Delhi) 442. Other averments made in the statement of claim have been denied and dismissal of the claim has been prayed for. Issues
13.On 27.08.2020, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1.Whether the present dispute has not been properly espoused by the union?
2. Whether no demand notice was sent by the workman to the management, if so its effect? OPM
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 has relied upon the documents as WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/7.
Management's Evidence
15.Management examined MW1 Sh. Pawan Kumar Jolly, Administrative Officer, CED, MCD (HQ) Civic Centre by way of an affidavit Ex. MW1/A and has relied upon document Ex.MW1/1. Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19 16:05:17 +0530 Award 6 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC
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 not been properly espoused by the union?
17.It is submitted by AR for the management that the present dispute is not an industrial dispute as the same is not properly espoused by the Union.
18.Adverting to the facts of the present case, in order to prove the proper espousal, workman examined himself as WW-1 and duly proved on record the resolution of the Union dated 16.10.2017 as Ex. WW1/4 in which resolution for raising the cause of workman was passed. WW-1 was not cross examined on the aspect of espousal. Furthermore, even MW-1 in his cross-examination stated that he did not know about the espousal in this case as to whether that is in accordance with law or not. He stated that he did not have any knowledge about the resolution of the Union Ex.WW1/4 and he could not point out any shortfall or any inadequacy in the same. Thus, the management failed to point out any deficiency in the espousal and the only assertion in this regard Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19 16:05:28 +0530 Award 7 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC is the bald assertion of the management to this effect in its written statement.
19.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 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 Union.
20.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. Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA SHARAD Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.19
16:05:36
+0530
Award 8 of 28
POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC
21.Even otherwise, Demand notice Ex.WW1/1 was sent on the letter head of the Union. A claim Ex.WW1/3 was also raised by the Union on behalf of the workman before the Conciliation Officer. Thus, the documentary evidence on record besides the testimony of WW-1 show that the cause of the workman was properly espoused by the Union.
Furthermore, MW-1 did not point out any deficiency in the espousal. Also the management failed to point out any deficiency in the espousal in its written statement. In face of the said factual matrix, to my mind, the objections regarding espousal has been taken just for the sake of taking an objection and are liable to be rejected in the facts of the present case. Hence, the documentary evidence, as well as the oral testimony of workman, clearly establish that the cause of the workman has been properly espoused by the Municipal Employees Union. The arguments of the management in this regard are, thus, liable to be rejected.
22.In the facts of the present case, as already observed the workman has been able to establish proper espousal of his cause by the Union. Thus, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Issue No.2: Whether no demand notice was sent by the workman to the management, if so its effect? OPM Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.19 16:05:41 +0530 Award 9 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC
23.Further argument of the management is that no demand notice was served by the workman prior to raising the present dispute.
24.In this context, in his affidavit of evidence, workman deposed that a demand notice Ex. WW1/1 dated 26.10.2017 was sent to the Management by the Union through postal receipt as Ex. WW1/2. It establishes that demand notice was duly sent at the address of the management. MW-1 asserted that the demand notice Ex.WW1/1 bears the correct address of the management. MW-1 was cross examined further on this aspect and he stated that he had not made any effort to collect all the correct facts from the concerned officials in this case to find out whether the legal demand notice Ex.WW1/1 was received by the management or not. He stated that he did not make any effort to look into the diary and dispatch register of the then EDMC of October, 2017. Thus, considering that the demand notice Ex.WW1/1 was bearing the correct address of the management and considering that the workman has been able to establish that the same was sent through postal receipt Ex.WW1/2, this Tribunal is of the view that there is nothing on record to suggest that the demand notice Ex.WW1/1 was not duly dispatched to or received by the management. None the less, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P (C) No. Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19 16:05:48 +0530 Award 10 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC 13023/2005 titled "Workmen of MCD vs. MCD", has observed that serving of demand notice is not sine-qua-non for raising an industrial dispute. Thus, in the facts of the present case, it is observed that the workman has been able to establish that a legal demand notice was duly sent to the management. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Issue No.3: As per terms of reference?
25.The question to be decided is as to whether demand of the workman for regularization on the post of Driver with retrospective effect alongwith payment of entire difference of salary with all consequential and attendant benefits is justified or not. It is not in dispute that the services of the workman was regularized on 01.04.2003, however, workman is demanding that his service be regularized from date of his joining the employment i.e. w.e.f. 07.06.1995.
26.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 Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19 16:05:54 +0530 Award 11 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC or any body or authority governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Regularization furthermore cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are ad-hoc in 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.
27.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.
28.It would be appropriate here to refer to the settled proposition of law on this aspect. 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 Digitally signed who continued for several years, or decades, SHARAD GUPTA by SHARAD Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.19 16:06:00 +0530 Award 12 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC 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 judgment. In our view, accepting the stand that the MCD seeks to canvas in these petitions, would not only weaponize, but would in fact demonize, Uma Devi.
29.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 regularization, 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 regularize the services of the workman concerned is misplaced in law.
30.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 MW-1 admitted the documents i.e. Ex.WW1/6 to Ex.WW1/8 in this regard. Furthermore, MW-1 also admitted the date of initial appointment of the workman as 07.06.1995 during his cross-
examination. Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19
16:06:07 +0530
Award 13 of 28
POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC
31.It would be pertinent here to refer to the cross-examination of MW-1. MW-1 admitted that the workman joined into the employment of management w.e.f. 07.06.1995 as driver. He also admitted that the workman was working against the permanent vacant post of driver which carries the regular pay scale and attendant benefits. He also admitted that the job of the driver is of perennial nature in MCD as the drivers are working since the very inception of MCD i.e. 1958 till date and are likely to continue in future. He further admitted that as per Ex.WW1/6 to Ex.WW1/8 the workman was fulfilling the requisite qualification for the post of driver and when he passed the trade test he was appointed by the management. He further asserted that he could not assign any reason as to why the workman was not appointed as a regular and permanent driver and granted regular pay scale with attendant benefits from 07.06.1995.
32. It is thus 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 workman was appointed against the sanctioned post of Driver and worked as such till date. Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19 16:06:14 +0530 Award 14 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC
33.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, i.e. for decades altogether. 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 worker, 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.
34.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. AR for 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 industrial peace in the establishment of the management but no policy pertaining to regularization of Drivers has been placed on record by the management. To my mind, the ratio in MCD Vs. Gauri Shankar (Supra) relied upon by the management is of no help to the management in the facts of the present case as the management has not been able to show Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19 16:06:20 +0530 Award 15 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC that there was any policy of regularization of services of drivers who were working as muster roll employees and were treated as daily wagers.
35.Furthermore, the 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 1995, 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. MW-1 in his cross-examination specifically admitted that the workman was working against a vacant post of driver. Also, in his cross-examination MW-1 stated that he did not have any reason to show as to why the services of the workman was not regularized as a driver from initial date in regular pay scale with attendant benefits. Thus, the management has also failed to provide any basis for how the cut-off date of 01.04.2003 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 nearly eight years of service of the workman were eaten away and set at naught without any justification whatsoever.
36.In the fact of the present case, when the admission of the management in cross-examination of MW-1 that the Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.19 16:06:30 +0530 Award 16 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC workman was fulfilling requisite qualification of driver when he was initially appointed, the reliance by management on ratio in MCD Vs. Its Workmen, State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh and DDA vs. POIT-I (Supra) is of no help to the management in the facts of the present case.
37.It is argued on behalf of the management that the workman was regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2003 while the present dispute was raised by him after undue delay only in the year 2017 when he had, as per him, sent the demand notice to the management. In this context, it is pertinent to observe that the workman had worked continuously with the management from 07.06.1995 till date as per record. In the facts of the present case, the contention of the workman in his cross- examination was that he had objected to his treatment as a daily wager and not as a permanent employee although no such objection was made in writing. Similarly, he had asserted that he had raised verbal objections regarding his non-regularization from the initial date of his joining. To my mind, there was no specific denial by the management that the workman was raising verbal dispute against his initial appointment was muster roll employee and thereafter his regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2003. In these facts, the workman cannot be held guilty of any latches or delay in raising the dispute. Furthermore, the contention of Ld. AR for workman Digitally signed SHARAD by SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.03.19 16:06:38 +0530 Award 17 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC was that the workman was still continuing in service and the action of management in appointing the workman as muster roll employee and regularizing him from a later date was a continuing wrong and as such, there was no delay in raising of his dispute by the workman. I find force in contentions of Ld. AR for the workman. It is not disputed that the workman has worked from the initial date of his appointment till date with the management. To my mind, the denial of the management to regularize the workman from initial date of his joining was a continuing wrong and as such, the workman cannot be held guilty for any latches or delay.
38.Even if this argument regarding delay is taken its face value and it is held that there is 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.
39.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. Therefore, we have to interfere with the impugned award of the Labour Court and the judgment & order of the High Court as it has erroneously Digitally signed by SHARAD confirmed the award of the Labour Court without SHARAD GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.19 16:06:59 +0530 Award 18 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC examining the relevant provisions of the Act and decisions of this Court referred to supra on the relevant issue regarding the limitation.."
40.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.
41.Management has also argued that the workman has duly accepted his regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2003 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 workman has "consented" to his regularization on the post of Driver w.e.f. 01.04.2003, that does not give the license to the management to indulge in unfair labour practices. Given that the workman is a lowly paid employee and considering his socio-economic background, it is unreasonable to assume that he possesses equal bargaining power in determining the terms of his employment, including decisions related to his regularization.
42.Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Digitally signed by SHARAD Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo Nath SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19 16:07:07 +0530 Award 19 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156. Likewise, the 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-wage categories, often have no choice but to accept employment under exploitative terms offered by the employer 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 also implies equal pay for work of equal value. 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. Thus, the argument of the management in this regard is liable to be rejected.
43. 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 Digitally signed workmen by holding that: SHARAD by SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19 16:07:15 +0530 Award 20 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC
(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.
44.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 nature of work as a Driver.
c) 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 01.04.2003 implying that he fulfilled all the relevant criteria.
45.As already observed, management has failed to bring on record any policy specifically pertaining to regularization of Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19 16:07:22 +0530 Award 21 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC drivers and even no rule/policy of the management can outweigh the Industrial Disputes Act. Whatever the policy may be, it should align with labour laws. The management cannot, under the guise of "policy", perform actions that are strictly prohibited under the Industrial Disputes Act.
46.The Industrial Disputes Act at Item No. 10 of Fifth Schedule outlines Unfair Labour Practice as "to employ workmen as 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.
47.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, and in such a case, Industrial Tribunal has the power to pass an order for regularization of the workman.
48.In "Jaggo Vs Union of India & Others, SLP (C ) 5580/2024,"
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19 16:07:28 +0530 Award 22 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC
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.
49. Recently, in Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr . in Civil Appeal no. 8558 of 2018, vide judgment dated 19.08.2025 the Hon'ble Apex Court regularized the services of the workmen therein and has categorically held that :
"17 Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and Digitally signed by SHARAD offends the promise of equal protection. Financial SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19 16:07:38 +0530 Award 23 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18.Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-
hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running."
50.Workman gave sustained contribution to the management. As per record, there is no adverse remark against him. In view of undisputed service of the workman and the perennial nature of duty coupled with vacancies of drivers and as held in above authoritative judgments, the service of the workman is entitled to be regularized on the post of driver from the date of his initial appointment w.e.f. 07.06.1995.
51.In the facts of the present case, 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- Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.19 16:07:46 +0530 Award 24 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC regularization, as such, it is held that workman is entitled to the consequential benefits.
52.Documentary evidence brought on record by the workman clearly proves his claim of performing his duty as driver with the management. Thus, the claim of the workman for the equal pay in the scale of driver cannot be disregarded. In this context, reference can be made to the settled proposition of law on this aspect.
53.In Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637, it was held as follows:-
2.These writ petitions have been initiated on the basis of two letters, one addressed by Dhirendra Chamoli and the other by Mohan Singh both of whom are employees of Nehru Yuvak Kendra, Dehradun. The complaint made in the writ petitions is that there are a number of persons who are engaged by Nehru Yuvak Kendra as casual workers on daily wage basis and though they are doing the same work as is performed by Class IV employees appointed on regular basis, they are not being given the same salary and allowances as are being paid to Class IV employees. Since Nehru Yuvak Kendras have been started by the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India, we issued notice to the Central Government to show cause why the employees of the Nehru Yuvak Kendras performing the same duties as Class IV employees should not be paid the same salary and allowances. The under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Sports has filed a counter affidavit in which it is alleged that the Nehru Yuvak Kendras have been started at Digitally signed different places in the country as temporary organisations and they have by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.19 16:07:52 +0530 Award 25 of 28 POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC not yet been made permanent, with the result that there are no sanctioned posts of Class IV employees and the employees who are engaged by different Nehru Yuvak Kendras are taken as casual employees on daily wage basis. The argument envisaged in the counter affidavit is that since there are no sanctioned posts to which regular appointments can be made, the casual employees employed by different Nehru Yuvak Kendras cannot claim to receive the same salary and perquisites as Class IV employees appointed regularly to sanctioned posts. But while raising this argument, it is conceded in the counter affidavit that "the persons engaged by the Nehru Yuvak Kendras perform the same duties as is performed by Class IV employees appointed on regular basis against sanctioned posts. If that be so, it is difficult to understand how the Central Government can deny to these employees the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV7 employees regularly appointed against sanctioned posts. It is peculiar on the part of the Central Government to urge that these persons took up employment with the Nehru Yuvak Kendras knowing fully well that they will be paid only daily wages and therefore they cannot claim more. This argument lies ill in the mouth of the Central Government for it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and a Welfare State committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument. It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.19
16:08:01 +0530
Award 26 of 28
POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC
Article 14 of the Constitution. This Article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, must therefore get the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees. It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they are performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees.
54.Similarly, the ratio in "MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & Others W.P. (C ) No.7947/2010" can be adverted to on the aspect where the similar relief was awarded to the workman therein, by the Central Administrative Tribunal and writ petition filed against the order was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court. Hence, the terms of reference/ the issue no. 3 is answered in favor of the workman and against the management.
55.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. 07.06.1995 along with payment of entire difference of salary on the "Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work" with all consequential benefits.
Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.19
16:08:08
+0530
Award 27 of 28
POIT No: 241/2018 Sri Chand Vs EDMC
Relief
56. In view of the above findings, it is held that the workman Sri Chand S/o Sh. Bhagwan Shaye is entitled to regularization in service on the post of Driver w.e.f. 07.06.1995 along with payment of entire difference of salary on the "Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work" with all consequential benefits.
57.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. 31.07.2018 till its realization. The award is passed accordingly.
58.Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
59. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in the open court on 19th March, 2026 Digitally signed SHARAD by SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.03.19 16:08:16 +0530 ( SHARAD GUPTA ) Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-II, Rouse Avenue District Court New Delhi Award 28 of 28