Delhi District Court
Meena Kumari vs Ndmc on 8 October, 2025
POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
POIT No. 452/2019
CNR No. DLCT13-002044-2019
Meena Kumari
W/o Sh. Anand Kumar
VPO Bhoopania,
District Jhajjar, Haryana.
As represented by
Secretary,
Hospital Employees Union (Registration No. 788),
Agarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi-110 054 ..... Workman
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner (North)
S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre,
J.L. Nehru Marg,
New Delhi-110002 .... Management
Date of institution 13.03.2019
Order reserved on 23.08.2025
Date of Award 08.10.2025
Award
1. Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory
of Delhi has referred this dispute on 01.03.2019 vide
reference no. F.24(30)/19/Ref./CD/Lab./117 for adjudication
Digitally signed
with the following terms of the reference: by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.10.09
20:28:47 +0530
Award Page No. 1 of 17
POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
"Whether the termination of services of the
workmen (details as per Annexure 'A') by the
management during the pendency of industrial
dispute in respect of regularization of their
services is in contravention to the provisions of
Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes 1947
and/or illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so, to
what relief are they entitled and directions are
necessary in this respect?"
Statement of Claim
2. In her claim, workman has stated that she joined employment of
the management w.e.f. 23.09.2005 on contract basis, and she
was posted in Ayurvedic Dispensary. Workman was
discharging her service to the entire satisfaction of her
superiors and has unblemished and uninterrupted record of
service to her credit.
3. It is stated that workman was continuously discharging her
services regularly and uninterruptedly, therefore, she raised
an Industrial Dispute seeking regularization of her service on
the post of Auxiliary Nurse Mid-Wives (ANM) in proper pay
scale and allowances and regarding her entitlement to
difference of salary on the principal of Equal Pay for Equal
Work. It is stated that as the workman raised dispute
regarding regularization of her service, management felt
annoyed, and they started pressurizing complainant to
Digitally signed
withdraw her industrial dispute. GAUTAM MANAN
by GAUTAM
MANAN Date:
2025.10.09
20:28:57 +0530
Award Page No. 2 of 17
POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
4. It is averred that the matter was lingering on regarding the
issue of withdrawal of dispute and when the workman did not
withdraw her Industrial Dispute, the management on
28.11.2017 refused duties and terminated her services orally.
It is alleged that action of the management to terminate
workman is a clear-cut act of victimization as the main
motive of the management was to pressurize the workman to
withdraw her industrial dispute and when the workman /
complaint refused to the said illegal demand of the
management, they have taken the drastic step of termination
of services of the workman.
5. It is further submitted that more than 50,000 workers are
working with the management. Management was supposed to
give a three months notice to the workman as stipulated
under law, but they did not give any such notice to her. Even
the prior permission of the appropriate government was also
not obtained by the management to take the impugned action
of termination.
6. It is stated that service of the workman was terminated by the
management illegally and unjustifiably and that too during
the pendency of aforesaid industrial dispute. As such, the
termination of workman is illegal, unjust and malafide and is
in clear-cut violation of the provisions of Section 33 of
Industrial Dispute Act and the management officials are
Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2025.10.09
20:29:03 +0530
Award Page No. 3 of 17
POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
liable to be prosecuted for the offence as provided under
Section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
7. It is averred that the management has no right to terminate
the services of the workman without seeking prior
permission/approval from Industrial Tribunal and the action
of the management tantamount to adopting unfair labour
practice as provided under Section 2(ra) read with Item No. 5
(a), (b), (d) & (f), of the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
8. Workman submitted that the impugned termination is in total
violation of section 25 (f) (g) & (h) of I.D. Act as in case of
retrenchment, no seniority list was displayed, no notice was
given, no notice pay was offered and no service
compensation was either offered or paid to the
workman/complainant aforesaid at the time of termination of
her service.
9. It is averred that the workman has completed much more than
240 days of continuous employment for the purpose of
section 25-B of I.D. Act prior to her illegal termination and
she cannot be thrown out of job in the manner it has been
done. It is stated that workman has been meted out with
hostile discrimination as juniors to her have been retained in
Digitally signed
service and she was thrown out of job. by GAUTAM
MANAN
GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.10.09
20:29:09
+0530
Award Page No. 4 of 17
POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
10.Workman has prayed that termination of workman be held
illegal, and a direction be issued to the management to
reinstate the workman concerned in services with continuity
of service and full back wages along with all consequential
benefits and furthermore, the concerned officials of the
management be also persecuted for the offence committed by
them as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Written Statement
11.Management in its written statement stated that claim of the
workman is liable to be rejected because the workman was
never terminated and merely her contract of service came to
an end as per terms and conditions of contract when the
regularly recruited ANMs from DSSSB joined their services
with the answering management. The contract of service was
extended from time to time as per availability of vacancies
with the respondents and it was specifically mentioned in the
terms and conditions of contract that the contractual services of the claimant workmen would be for a period of 6 months or till the post be filled up by the regularly recruited ANMs from DSSSB, whichever is earlier.
12. It is stated that contractual engagement of the workman was a temporary measure and it was explicitly mentioned in the office order No.AO(H)/NDMC/2016/D-844 dated Digitally signed by 21.11.2016, that the engagement of workmen on the post of GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.10.09 20:29:14 +0530 Award Page No. 5 of 17 POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
ANM is purely on contract basis for a period of six months or till such time the post is filled up on regular basis through DSSSB.
13.It is further submitted that there is no policy of the management to regularize the services of contractual employees and therefore, the claim of the workman for regularization of services is not tenable before the eyes of law. Further, the regular appointment of ANMs for the answering management is being done by DSSSB by conducting an examination.
14.It is stated that the jurisdiction to try the service matters pertaining to the employees of management has been conferred to Central Administrative Tribunal vide Rule 154(b), The CAT Rules of Practice and Appendix-VI thereof. Hence, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to try the present application.
15. It is submitted that if the workman is given the relief claimed then the same will be in contravention of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in "Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi". It is so because the workman were engaged on contract basis and many people who do not apply for contractual employment may apply for regular appointments and therefore, regularization of such contractual employees Digitally signed will be in violation of right of other eligible people granted to GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.10.09 20:29:20 +0530 Award Page No. 6 of 17 POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
them by Art. 16 of Constitution of India. It is submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court in "Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs Krishan Gopal and Ors" held that the powers of a Labour Court or an Industrial Court do not extend to order regularization in the context of public employment and which order would offend the provisions of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
Issues
16.On 22.03.2022 on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
(1) Whether this Tribunal have jurisdiction to try this matter? OPW.
(2) As per terms of reference. (3) Relief Workman's Evidence
17.In order to prove her entitlement, workman examined herself as WW1. Workman tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.WW1/A. Workman deposed on the lines of her claim and proved the following documents:
i) Copy of demand notice dated 07.10.2017 as Ex.WW1/1.
ii) Copy of Postal Receipt as Ex. WW1/2.
iii) Copy of demand notice dated 02.11.2017 as Ex.WW1/3.
iv) Copy of Postal Receipt as Ex. WW1/4.
v) Copy of Statement of claim filed by workman before the Digitally signed by GAUTAM Conciliation Officer as Ex.WW1/5. GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.10.09 20:29:33 +0530 Award Page No. 7 of 17 POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
vi) Copy of Award dated 05.05.2017 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Court, Delhi (Case Titled as Vandana & 22 Ors. Vs. MCD) as Ex. WW1/6.
vii) Copy of memorandum dated 13.05.2005 as Ex WW1/7.
viii) Copy of Office Orders issued by the management as Ex.WW1/8 to Ex WW1/17.
ix) Copy of complaint filed by the workman, reply by the management and rejoinder of workman under Section 33A as Ex WW1/18 to Ex WW1/20.
Management's Evidence
18. Management examined MW1 Vinod Kumar who tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.MW1/A.
19.Final arguments have been heard at-length as advanced by both the parties. Tribunal has gone through the documents, pleadings as well as arguments of parties. Analysis and Discussion Issue no. 1: Whether this Tribunal have jurisdiction to try this matter? OPW.
20.It is the case of management that the jurisdiction to try the service matters pertaining to the employees of management has been conferred to Central Administrative Tribunal vide Rule 154(b), The CAT Rules of Practice and Appendix-VI thereof. Hence, Tribunal does not possess the jurisdiction to Digitally signed try the present application. by GAUTAM MANAN GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.10.09
20:29:38
+0530
Award Page No. 8 of 17
POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
21. Though, the management raised an objection in respect of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in view of Central Administrative Tribunal vide Rule 154(b), The CAT Rules of Practice and Appendix-VI, however, MW1 Vinod Kumar during his cross-examination stated that he has not read the said provision of law. Nonetheless, the provision cited by the management is in respect of classification of cases by the Central Administrative Tribunal, and it provides for department-wise classification of the matters in accordance with Appendix VI.
22. Facts of the case, makes it evident that as per the definition of Industrial Dispute given in Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Dispute Act, it is clear that any dispute between the employer and employer or between the employer and workmen or workmen & workmen, which is connected with the employment or non employment or terms and conditions of the employment would be treated as an industrial dispute. Present dispute is in respect of regularization of the service of the workman who claims to be in continuous employment of the management, thus, the dispute is covered by definition of Industrial Dispute under Section 2 (k). Accordingly, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present dispute. Accordingly, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the workman. Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.10.09
20:29:43
+0530
Award Page No. 9 of 17
POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
Issue No.2: As per terms of reference.
23.Claim of the workman in short is that her termination by the management was illegal and in violation of Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, during the pendency of an industrial dispute without prior permission from the Tribunal.
24.On the other hand, it is the case of management that workman was merely a contractual employee and her employment was governed by the terms of the contract. It is submitted that non-renewal of the contract of the workman after the end of contract period i.e. on 28.11.2017 does not amount to her illegal termination.
25. In Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma, Appeal (Civil) No. 87-88 of 1988, decided on 17.01.2002, Tops Security Ltd. vs. Subhash Chander Jha, LPA 1044/2011 and Badshah Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board, LPA No. 604/2014, decided on 27.08.2019 it has been consistently held that termination of any workman during the pendency of an Industrial Dispute, without obtaining prior approval under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, is unlawful and invalid.
26. It is an undisputed fact that the workman had raised an industrial dispute regarding her regularization on the post of ANM, and in that respect a POIT No. 111/2018 titled as Digitally "Meena Kumari vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation" is still GAUTAM signed GAUTAM MANAN by MANAN Date:
2025.10.09 20:29:48 +0530 Award Page No. 10 of 17 POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
pending adjudication. The said dispute was instituted before this Conciliation Officer vide statement of claim Ex.WW1/5 dated 17.11.2017. On the day when workman was dis- engaged i.e. on 28.11.2017 the said dispute was pending before the Conciliation Officer.
27.Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act imposes a statutory bar on employers from altering the service conditions of workmen to their prejudice during the pendency of an industrial dispute.
28. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar Municipality v.
Alibhai Karimbhai, (1977) 2 SCC 350 has categorically held that, if an industrial dispute concerning regularization is pending, the service conditions of the workmen, however insecure, must subsist during the pendency of such a dispute. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:
14. The character of the temporary employment of the respondents being a direct issue before the Tribunal, that condition of employment, however, insecure, must subsist during the pendency of the dispute before the Tribunal and cannot be altered to their prejudice by putting an end to that temporary condition. This could have been done only with the express permission of the Tribunal. It goes without saying that the respondents were directly concerned in the pending industrial dispute. No one can also deny that snapping of the temporary employment of Digitally the respondents is not to their prejudice. All the signed by GAUTAM five features adverted to above are present in the GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
instant case. To permit rupture in employment, 2025.10.09 20:29:54 +0530 Award Page No. 11 of 17 POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
in this case, without the prior sanction of the Tribunal will be to set at naught the avowed object of Section 33 which is principally directed to preserve the status quo under specified circumstances in the interest of industrial peace during the adjudication. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that the appellant has contravened the provisions of Section 33(1)
(a) of the Act and the complaint under Section 33-A, at the instance of the respondents, is maintainable. The submission of Mr Parekh to the contrary cannot be accepted.
29.Management, has submitted that workman was a contractual employee, and the non-renewal of her contract does not amount to illegal termination of her services during the pendency of the dispute for regularization. Instead, it falls under the ambit of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which excludes the termination of a contract worker upon the expiry of the contract period from the definition of retrenchment.
30. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jitender Kumar v.
State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10648 after relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager, (2003) 4 SCC 27 has observed the following with respect to the applicability of Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:
Digitally signed by GAUTAM14. In S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom, District GAUTAM MANAN Date: Manager, Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 27 : AIR MANAN 2025.10.09 20:30:00 +0530 Award Page No. 12 of 17 POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
2003 SC 3553, the Supreme Court held that where the management pleads that clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the ID Act is attracted; the burden of proof would be on the management to establish the same by way of evidence. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said judgment read as under:
"13. The termination of service of a workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Sub- clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied:
(i) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration;
(ii) the employment was on a contract, and not as a daily-wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and
(iii) the employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract.
(iv) the workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the abovesaid terms by the employer at the commencement of employment.14. The engagement of a workman as a daily-wager does not by itself amount to putting the workman on notice that he was being engaged in a scheme or project which was to last only for a particular length of time or upto to occurrence of some event, and therefore, the workman ought to know that his employment was short-lived. The contract of employment consciously entered into by the workman with the employer would result in a notice to the workman on the date of the commencement of the employment itself that Digitally signed by his employment was short-lived and as per the GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN terms of the contract the same was liable to MANAN Date:
2025.10.09 termination on the expiry of the contract and the 20:30:06 +0530 Award Page No. 13 of 17 POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
scheme or project coming to an end. The workman may not therefore complain that by the act of employer his employment was coming to an abrupt termination. To exclude the termination of a scheme or project employee from the definition of retrenchment it is for the employer to prove the abovesaid ingredients so as to attract the applicability of Sub-clause (bb) abovesaid. In the case at hand, the respondent- employer has failed in alleging and proving the ingredients of Sub-clause (bb), as stated hereinabove. All that has been proved is that the appellants were engaged as casual workers or daily-wagers in a project. For want of proof attracting applicability of Sub-clause (bb), it has to be held that the termination of the services of the appellants amounted to retrenchment."
15. As already noticed in the present case, the Respondents have failed to lead any evidence themselves and also failed to cross-examine any of the workmen. The question as far as the Labour Court is concerned, was only whether Section 25-F of the ID Act, stood attracted. Interestingly, in the written statement filed by the Respondents, no plea was taken that clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the ID Act was attracted. In any event, there was no evidence to support such a plea. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was in error in permitting the Respondents to raise the plea for the very first time in the High Court. Notwithstanding this, in the absence of any evidence to show that the termination was in terms of the contract, such a plea could not have been entertained and adjudicated upon.
16. The fact remains that in these cases, the services of the Appellants were continued well Digitally signed beyond the period of 89 days, in terms of the GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN initial appointment orders, which took effect MANAN Date:
from 1st December, 2001. Admittedly, they 2025.10.09 20:30:10 +0530 Award Page No. 14 of 17 POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
continued serving for over four years till the actual date of termination of their services, by the order dated 20th December, 2005.
31. In the present case, burden to prove the applicability of Section 2(oo)(bb) lies with the management. Workman was working as Auxiliary Nurse Mid-Wife in the establishment of management. In his cross-examination MW1 Vinod Kumar admitted that workman was working against the vacant post of ANM which carries the regular pay scale with attendant benefits since her initial date of appointment, and she worked continuously and uninterruptedly w.e.f. her initial date of joining to 28.11.2017.
32.It is evident that the workman was not employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration and workman was engaged in permanent and perennial work, and not in a temporary project. In fact, it is admitted that the workman had been working against the vacant post of ANM which establishes the permanent nature of her employment.
33.It is proved on record that the service of the workman was terminated after she raised an industrial dispute for her regularization, which means that the termination was retaliatory in nature and not due to the expiry of any contract, as alleged by the management. Thus, the contention of the management that the termination falls within the exception provided under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act and does not Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.10.09 20:30:16 +0530 Award Page No. 15 of 17 POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
constitute retrenchment, and that the compliance with Section 33 of the I.D. Act is not required, is unsustainable and devoid of merit.
34.It is an admitted position that no prior permission or approval was sought by management from any competent authority before terminating the services of the workman nor there is any material on record to establish compliance by the management with the statutory requirement of obtaining permission or approval under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
35. Accordingly, it is concluded that termination of the services of the workman w.e.f. 28.11.2017 by the management, without prior permission or approval from the appropriate authority, is in violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and is, therefore, void ab initio. Further reliance is placed on the judgments of Tops Security Ltd. v. Subhash Chander Jha, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3691, Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma, Appeal (Civil) No. 87-88 of 1988, decided on 17.01.2002.
36. Nonetheless, termination of the workman is also in clear violation of Sections 25F, 25G, and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, as no notice, notice pay, or retrenchment compensation was provided to the workman prior to his Digitally termination. Furthermore, the management failed to produce GAUTAM signed by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.10.09 20:30:22 +0530 Award Page No. 16 of 17 POIT No. 452/2019 "Meena KumariVs NDMC"
any evidence proving compliance with the principle of "last come, first go'" nor did it display or exhibit any seniority list.
37. Therefore, it is held that the termination of the workmen vide order dated 28.11.2017 by the management cannot be sustained. The issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Relief
38.In view of the fact that removal of workman from service is held to be in violation of Sections 25F, 25G, and 25H and Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, workman Meena Kumari W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar is entitled to be re- instated with continuity in service on the post of Auxiliary Nurse Mid-Wives from the date of her dis-engagement i.e. w.e.f. 28.11.2017 along with full back wages with all consequential benefits. Management is directed to implement the award within 60 days of its publication, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of termination, 28.11.2017 till realization.
Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by GAUTAM Announced in the open court on 8th October 2025. GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.10.09 20:30:28 +0530 GAUTAM MANAN PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI Award Page No. 17 of 17