Delhi District Court
) vs Mcd (Cw6514/2001) Has Disapproved The ... on 18 January, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF MS SHAIL JAIN, PRESIDING OFFICER, INUDSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL02, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
ID No. 495/16
Sh Raj Kumar,
son of Sh. Gaje Singh
represented by MCD General Mazdoor Union
C/o Room No. 95, Barrack No 1/10
Jam Nagar House, New Delhi13.
Vs
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
4th Floor, Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi02.
Date of Institution: 07.02.2013
Date of Order:18/01/2019
ORDER
1) Workman has raised the present dispute and on failure of conciliation proceedings, GNCT of Delhi referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication in the following term of reference "Whether the demand of Sh Raj Kumar son of Sh Gaje Singh is entitled for the status of Chaudhary in the pay scale of Rs.260400 w.e.f. 01/01/1983 and further revised from time to time with all consequential benefits and if so, to what relief is he 1 Out of 20 2 entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2) Statement of claim was filed on behalf of the workman. In the statement of claim, workman has stated that he has been allotted the work of Chaudhary w.e.f. 01/01/83 by the Horticulture Department but he has been denied the pay scale of Chaudhary revised from time to time. It is the claim of the workman that management has fixed different payscale to their employees including mali, Chaudhary etc. Present workman has been getting the lower payscale for the post of mali ie Rs.196232 revised from time to time but he is denied the pay scale of Rs.260400 for his performing the duty of Chaudhary w.e.f.
01/01/83 and the action of the management in not granting the pay scale of Chaudhary to the present workman is illegal. It is the claim of the workman that the duty of mali is of unskilled nature but post of Chaurdhary is skilled post being groupC employee. There are different payscales for both the categories. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Jai Chand vs MCD (CW6514/2001) has disapproved the non payment vide order dt 02/05/2003 for the work of Chaudhary. In compliance of the said order, management has also issued the implementation of the said order vide order dt 04/03/05. The management is under a duty to pay the wages to present workman in the pay scale of chaudhary w.e.f. 01/01/83 along with all consequential benefits and also grant the status of the Chaudhary from the said date.
3) Management/MCD has filed the written statement wherein they have taken the preliminary objections that the present dispute is not an 2 Out of 20 3 Industrial Dispute, but is an individual dispute and the the same has not been espoused by the union. No demand notice has been served upon the management by the workman. The MCD General Mazdoor Union has no locus standi to raise the present dispute. The workman was initially engaged on the post of mali on daily wage basis and later on he was regularized on the same post of mali in the pay scale of Rs.196 232 plus allowances. It has further been submitted that the workman is neither having essential qualification for the post of Caudhary nor obtained the requisite rank in the trade test and as such his present claim is misconceived and is contrary to the provision of notified Recruitment Rules meant for the post of Garden Chaudhary, hence the claim is liable to be dismissed. Workman has never performed the duties of Garden Chaudhary. The statement of claim is not maintainable on the ground of latches/belated stage, since workman is claiming the post of garden chaudhary w.e.f. 01/01//83 whereas the present claim has been filed in the year 2013 ie after the lapse of 30 years. It has also been submitted by the management that present workman is performing the duties of mali and he was never allotted the work of Garden Chaudhary, so the allegation levelled by the workman is totally baseless and false. With these submissions, it is prayed by management that the claim of the workman be dismissed.
4) On 09/04/2012, following issues were framed by my Ld Predecessor:
1) Whether the present dispute is an industrial dispute as defined in section 2 (K) of Industrial Dispute Act?OPW
2) Whether any notice of demand was served upon management, if 3 Out of 20 4 not, its effect?OPW
3) Whether MCD General Mazdoor Union has locus standi to raise the present dispute?OPW
4) Whether the statement of claim is not maintainable on ground of latches/belated stage?OPM
5) As per terms of reference.
5) In support of his case, workman has appeared as WW1 and has tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex WW1/A. Workman has also relied upon documents Ex. WW1/1 to Ex WW1/8. WW2 Sh B.K. Prasad has tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW2/A and has relied upon the documents Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/4. Management has examined Sh Devkinandan Sharma as MW1. He has tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.MW1/A and has relied upon the documents from Ex.WW1/M`11 to M16, Ex.WW1/M12 and Ex.WW1/M13
6) Arguments were heard from Ld A.R for the parties. In support of his arguments, Ld A.R for the workman has relied upon the following judgments:
1) WP ( C ) No 7947/10MCD vs Sultan Singh
2) 1997 LAB I.C 1807 Nazrul Hassan vs Preseting Officer Central Government.
3) W.P ( C ) No 5550/2010 MCD Vs Mahipal
4) W.P ( C) 676/2013 Pratap Singh vs MCD
5) W.P ( C ) No 13023/05 Workmen of MCD vs MCD
7) I have considered the arguments advanced by Ld A.R for the parties, evidence led by the parties, the material available on record 4 Out of 20 5 and the relevant provisions of law. After considering the same, my issue wise findings are as follows: Issue no. 1 Whether the present dispute is an industrial dispute as defined in section 2 (K) of Industrial Dispute Act?OPW
8) Industrial dispute has been defined in Section 2 (k) of Industrial Dispute Act. For better understanding Section 2 (k) is reproduced as under:
"Industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, 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"
9) Thus from 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. It is also to be noted that section 2 (k) of Industrial Dispute deals with the dispute of 'workmen' and not 'workman' ie any dispute of an individual workman, unless the same is espoused or sponsored or supported by the union of workmen will not 5 Out of 20 6 be treated as industrial dispute.
10) It has been held in various cases as early as in the year 1955 that unless the dispute of individual workman is supported by the union of the workmen or sponsored by the group of workmen the dispute will not be an industrial dispute u/s 2 (k) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
11) In case Workmen of M/s Dharampal Prem Chand (Saugandhi) vs M/s Dharampal Prem Chand (Saugandhi) (1965) 3 SCR 394, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of espousal of individual dispute of workman. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that:
"The decisions of this court have consistently taken the view that in order that a dispute between a single employee and his employer should be validly referred under section 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 the workmen or by a number of workmen."
12) After the decision of case Workmen of M/s Dharampal Prem Chand (Saugandhi) vs M/s Dharampal Prem Pal (Saugandhi) 6 Out of 20 7 (mentioned above), Section 2 A of Industrial Dispute Act has been added in the Act, in 1965, which provides that any individual workman who has been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or otherwise terminated from the services by the employer, then all the dispute between that workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharge, dismissal or retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman or any "union of workmen" is party to the dispute. Thus, from the joint reading of section 2 (k) of Industrial Dispute Act and Section 2A of Industrial Dispute Act, it is clear that individual workman can raise the industrial dispute only in respect of the dispute arising out of his discharge, dismissal or retrenchment or termination. And all other causes of dispute is to be espoused by the union of the workmen.
13) Later on in case of Management of M/s Hotel Samrat Vs Govt of NCT and orsWPC No 6682 and WP C 6247 of 2004 decided on January 4, 2007, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has dealt with the issue of espousal of industrial dispute. In this case, Hon'ble Mr Justice S.N. Dhingra has elaborated the requirement of espousal of individual dispute of workman by the union. In this case Hon'ble High Court had observed:
"The dispute between an individual workman and the employer can be treated as an industrial dispute only where the workman as a body or a considerable section of them, make common cause with 7 Out of 20 8 the individual workman and espoused his demand. The question arises how the espousal can be inferred. Espousal means that the dispute of an individual workman is adapted by union as its own dispute or a large number of workmen give support to the cause of an individual workman.
14) After observing that individual dispute of workman cannot be called as industrial dispute unless it is espoused by the executive body of the union, Hon'ble High Court held in case of Management of Messers Hotel Samrat (mentioned above) that the dispute was not properly espoused by the union and therefore held not to be an industrial dispute.
15) From bare reading of these judgments, it is clear that unless the individual dispute of workman is espoused by the group of workmen or union, same cannot obtain the status of industrial dispute as per definition of Industrial Dispute Act u/s 2 (K) of Industrial Dispute Act.
16) It is also clear from the series of judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that there is no fixed proforma or procedure for espousal of the cause of the workman by the union. It is to be gathered from the facts of each case. In the present case, workman had examined WW2 Sh B.K. Prasad, who is president of the union. He has proved the documents Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/4. Ex.WW2/1 is the photocopy of the Certificate of Registration of trade union, Ex.WW2/2 is the photocopy of the order dt 8 Out of 20 9 29/07/05 passed by the Commissioner, MCD, Ex.WW2/3 is the copy of Espousal letter dt 05/01/11 & Ex.WW2/4 is the list of office bearers of the union
17) Applying these principles to the facts & circumstances of the case, it is clear that union has not espoused or sponsored the cause of the workman, as is clear from the testimony of WW1 and WW2. WW1 Workman has specifically stated that he does not know anything about the aforesaid union or its office bearers except Sh. B. K. Prasad, who is president of the union and who is also the person representing him in the present case. It is also submitted by the workman in his crossexamination dt 07/09/15 that he had complained about his demand to union approximately 15 years ago, ie, atleast in the year 2000 informed the union about the present claim but no action was taken by the union from 2000 till 2012 ie the date on which the reference was sent to this Tribunal. Workman has also stated in his crossexamination that he has not given any written complaint to the union about his claim for grant of payscale of Chaudhary. He is also not aware of any meeting of union taking place in respect to the present dispute. Thus, it is clear that neither any information was given by the workman to the union about the present claim made by him nor any such meeting was attended by him or had taken place in his presence. WW2 Sh B.K. Prasad in his crossexamination, on the other hand, had stated that written complaint was given by the workman to the union in respect to the present complaint, which is clearly in contradiction to the evidence led by the workman, hence cannot be relied upon. Even if it is considered that about 15 years ago ie in 2000, workman had informed 9 Out of 20 10 union about his complaint of non grant of payscale of Chaudhary, than also, it can be said that no action has been taken by the union in this respect either in 2000 or presently, as neither any demand notice has been sent to the management by the union nor any other action has been taken by the union to take up the cause of the workman. Hence merely signing the espousal letter Ex.WW2/3 is not sufficient to say that cause of the workman has been espoused by the union, as WW2 Sh B.K. Prasad has not been able to prove that any meeting had taken place in this regard or that workman had attended the meeting or union has agreed to sponsor the cause of the workman.
18) In view of my above discussion, I am of the opinion that workman has not been able to prove that his cause has been espoused or sponsored by the union and in the absence of espousal, an individual dispute cannot be considered to be an industrial dispute as defined u/s 2 (K) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Hence issue no. 1 is decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
ISSUE NO. 2: Whether any demand notice was served upon the management, if not, its effect?OPW
19) Onus to prove this issue was on the workman that notice of demand was served on the management. But no document has been placed or proved on record by the workman, which could be considered as a legal notice sent by the workman to the management. Therefore, it is clear that no legal notice has been sent to the management by the workman prior to the raising of the present demand by the workman. Hence, Issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the management and against 10 Out of 20 11 the workman.
ISSUE NO. 3: Whether MCD General Mazdoor Union has locus standi to raise the present dispute?OPW
20) Workman has relied upon the document Ex.WW2/2, which is a letter issued by the management for grant of permission to MCD General Mazdoor Union to represent the workers of the MCD, this clearly proves that present union was recognized by Management to take up the issues of workman. No evidence has been led by the management to contradict the testimony of the WW2. Hence issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the workman and against the management. ISSUE NO. 4: Whether statement of claim is not maintainable on ground of latches/belated stage?
21) As per the reference, present Tribunal has to decide whether the workman is entitled to get the status and payscale of Garden Chaudhary w.e.f. 01/01/83 . As per record, reference was made in this case by the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 31/10/2012 ie there is gap of almost of 30 years. Present dispute has been raised by the present workman after the gap of 30 years. The management has taken the objection that delay of 30 years have not been explained by the workman, hence present reference is not maintainable on the ground of delay and latches.
22) It is settled preposition of law that no period of limitation has been provided in Industrial Dispute Act for raising the industrial dispute, therefore, the Limitation Act cannot be applied to the provision of Industrial Dispute Act. But simultaneously by way of various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, it has been held 11 Out of 20 12 that dispute must be raised within the reasonable period of time ie before the dispute becomes stale or cease to exist.
23) In Nedunagadi Bank Ltd vs K.P Madhavankutty and others 2000 SCC (L&S) 282 Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the similar matter of delay, when the dispute was raised by the workman against his termination after 7 years. While discussing the relevant provision and application of Limitation Act on Industrial Dispute Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"Law does not prescribe any timelimit for the appropriate Government to exercise its power under section 10 of the Act, it is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject matter of reference under section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made u/s 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time when the reference in question was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that two other employees who were dismissed from services were reinstated. Under what circumstances
12 Out of 20 13 they were dismissed and subsequently reinstated is no where mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising an industrial dispute was exfacie bad and incompetent"
24) Further in Haryana State Coop Land Development Bank vs Neelam (2005) 5 SCC 91Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
" It is trite that the courts and tribunals having plenary jurisdiction have discretionary power to grant an appropriate relief to the parties. The aim and object of the Industrial Dispute Act may be to impart social justice to the workman but the same by itself would not mean that irrespective of his conduct a workmen would automatically be entitled to relief. The procedural laws like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are equally applicable to the industrial proceedings. A person in certain situation may even be held to be bound by the doctrine of acceptance sub silentio".
25) Applying these principle, in Ramesh Kumar vs Delhi Jal Board in W.P ( C ) 1034/2011, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that unexplained delay of six and half years in raising industrial dispute by workman disentitle him from any relief by the Industrial Tribunal.
26) Similarly in S. Shalimar Works Limited vs Their Workmen AIR 1959 SC 1217, it was held that "though no limitation is prescribed for making reference of the dispute to an Industrial Tribunal, nevertheless, it has to be made within a reasonable period. In that case delay of 4 years in raising industrial dispute was held to be fatal". Similar view was reiterated in S.M. Nilajkar and others vs Telecom District Manager, Karnataka 2003 (4) SCC 27. Relying upon abovesaid 13 Out of 20 14 authorities, our own Hon'ble High Court in Satbir Singh vs Management of Supdt, Engineer and others 138 (2007) DLT 528 (DHC) has held that "inordinate and unexplained delay in raising industrial dispute would defeat the rights of the workman and would disentitle him to any relief".
27) Considering the judgments of Nedunagadi Bank Ltd vs K.P Madhavankutty and others, (2) Ramesh Kumar vs Delhi Jal Board and (3) Haryana State Coop Land Development Bank vs Neelam and (4) State of Uttar Pradesh and ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava and ors (mentioned above), I am of the opinion that delay of 30 years in raising the present dispute has made the dispute stale and the same was not in existence for the workman, as he did not take any action prior to 2012 for raising the present dispute. It has not been shown by the workman as to why for this long period of 30 years he could not take up the matter with the management. No explanation of delay of 30 years have been tendered by the workman. Hence, issue no. 4 is decided against the workman and in favour of the management to the effect that the present reference is not maintainable on the ground of latches/belated stage.
ISSUE NO. 5.: " As per terms of reference"
28) In the present case, as per reference, Tribunal has to decide whether the workman is entitled to get the status and payscale of Garden Chaudhary w.e.f. 1/01/83. Admittedly workman has joined the duties with the management as Mali. The post of Mali is of unskilled worker in nature but as per claim of workman, he has been asked to
14 Out of 20 15 perform the duties of Garden Chaudhary, the post of Garden Chaudhary is of skilled nature. It was the duty of the workman to prove that he was performing the duties of Garden Chaudhary since 1983, but he was being paid the salary of Mali by the management i.e. of unskilled workman.
29) Workman has relied upon the judgment of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Sultan Singh and orsW.P ( C ) No 7947 of 2010 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had granted the relief to the workmen concerned, in that case, to the effect that these workman will be paid salary of Garden Chaudhary from the date, they were performing the duties of Garden Chaudhary. It has also been contended by Ld A.R for the workmen that in the present case since the workman was working as Garden Chaudhary on officiating basis, therefore, he should be granted the payscale of Garden Chaudhary and not that of Mali. Whereas the management has opposed the claim of the workman and had specifically stated that workman herein was never appointed/posted on the post of Garden Chaudhary, therefore, he has no right or entitlement to get the salary of Garden Chaudhary w.e.f 01/01/83.
30) In order to prove the case, workman has relied upon the photocopy of the document, Ex.WW1/1, which is list of Garden Chaudhary, working in Central Zone, Delhi. In this list, at Sl. No 41, name of the present workman is mentioned. On the basis of this document, entire claim of the workman has been based. After considering the document Ex.WW1/1, I am of the opinion that this document has not been proved in accordance with law, Firstly this 15 Out of 20 16 document is the photocopy, original of which has not been produced at the time of exhibition of the document before my Ld Predecessor; secondly the signature appended on document Ex.WW1/1 has not been proved. It has not been stated by the workman as to who has issued this list and who has signed this document. No witness from Central Zone of management has been examined by the workman to prove the authenticity and legality of the document. From perusal of the document, it can not be considered that document is official document or not, as no such stamp of MCD or number of the office is mentioned on the document.
31) Ex.WW1/2 is the office order passed by the MCD in respect to the implementation of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Jai Chand vs MCD (CW 6514/2001). This judgment does not provide any help to the present workman, as it is not related to the present workman. Hence no relief can be granted to the workman on the basis of this document.
32) Similarly the document Ex.WW1/3, is in respect to the implementation of the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P ( C) No 5453 of 2012 in Sultan Singh and others vs MCD. In this case before Hon'ble High Court, present workman was not a party . In the document Ex.WW1/3 it has been specifically mentioned at Sl No. 4 that this order applies only in respect to the applicants mentioned in the case Sultan Singh and others vs MCD. Even this document does not provide any help to the present workman. Ex.WW1/4 is the photocopy of I card of the workman issued by the management, showing the workman as Supervisor and not "Garden Chaudhary". Therefore, this 16 Out of 20 17 document also does not provide any help to the workman, in proving that he was working as Chaudhary.
33) Considering the evidence led by the WW1, it is clear that even workman himself has admitted that he was working as Mali with the MCD and not as Garden Chaudhary. In the crossexamination conducted on11/08/14 WW1 Sh Raj Kumar had clearly stated that he was transferred to City Zone as mali on 17/07/09. Although, he had stated that he has performed the duties of Garden Chaudhary. No evidence has been led by the workman to distinguish between the services performed by Mali and those performed by Garden Chaudhary. In the entire evidence not even a single document has been placed or proved on record by the workman to show that by any order he was asked to perform the duties of Garden Chaudhary on officiating basis.
34) On the other hand, management has submitted in the affidavit Ex.MW1/A of Shri Devki Nandan Sharma that workman was regularized on the post of mali w.e.f. 01/04/80 and he had been granted the first ACP w.e.f. 1/01/96 and after completion of 24 years of his regular service as mali, the workman had been granted the second ACP w.e.f. 01/04/2004 and third MACP was granted to the workman w.e.f. 01/04/2010 and the relevant pages of the service book of the workman has been exhibited as Ex.WW1/M11, which has been admitted to be correct by WW1. It has further been proved by the management that workman has been promoted to the post of Garden Chaudhary on current duty charge vide order dt 25/09/2014 exhibited as Ex.WW1/M16, showing these details.
35) During the crossexamination, workman who has appeared as 17 Out of 20 18 WW1 had admitted that he had earlier appeared in the Trade test for the post of Chaudhary in the year 2005 but was unsuccessful and 50 successful candidate in that Trade Test were promoted to the post of Garden Chaudhary by the management. The order of promotion of those 50 fellow colleague of the workman is Ex.WW1/M15 and the result of Trade Test conducted in the year 2005 is Ex.WW1/M14. WW 1 has appeared in the Trade Test for the post of Garden Chaudhary held in December 2013. Result of the same is Ex.WW1/M10. In view of the present result, workman was promoted as Chaudhary on current duty charge basis vide order dt 01/10/14, which is relied upon and exhibited as Ex.MW12/W1. In the entire crossexamination of the Management Witness, no question has been put to MW1 that workman was entitled to be given the payscale of Chaudhary from 01/01/1983 or that he has been wrongly denied the payscale of Garden Chaudhary from 01/01/1983 as claimed by the workman in the claim. Mere fact that workman had appeared in trade test for the post of Chaudhary conducted in 2005 & again in 2013 itself shows that workman was aware that he was working as Mali & not as Chaudhary.
36) In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that in the absence of any document being placed or proved on record by the workman to show that he was authorized or asked to perform the duties of Garden Chaudhary, relief claimed cannot be granted to him. It has been specifically admitted by the workman that he has not placed any document on record whereby he was appointed as Garden Chaudhary on officiating basis by the Commissioner, MCD. In the absence of any relevant documents coupled with the admission of the workman that he 18 Out of 20 19 has not cleared the Trade Test held in the year 2005 but has cleared the same in the year 2013 and has been given the posting of Chaudhary on Current duty charge in the year 2014, relief cannot be granted to the workman. Hence, Issue no. 5 is decided against workman.
37) Ld AR for the workman has relied upon various judgments but these judgments do not provide any help to the workman. I will discuss these cases separately.
a) The case W.P ( C ) 676/2013 titled as Pratap Singh and Anr vs MCD as relied upon by Ld AR for the workman is to the effect that even if espousal letter was issued and signed by Sh B.K. Prasad, President of the union prior to his becoming President of the union that would not have adverse effect on espousal of cause of the workman. This is not the scenario in the present case. Hence this judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case.
b) The facts of case of W.P ( C ) 5550 of 2010 titled as MCD vs Sh Mahipal does not apply to the facts of the present case, as in this case, Hon'ble High Court has held on the basis of Sultan Singh vs MCD case that workmen who were working as Chaudhary should have been paid salary of Chaudhary, as is clear from the above discussion, workman herein has not been able to prove that he was working as Chaudhary since 01/01/1983, thus he cannot be given the salary of Chaudhary. Thus facts of the case before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi can be differentiated from the facts of the present case.
38) In the case 1997 Lab.I.C 1807 Nazrul Hassan Siddiqui vs Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial cum Labour 19 Out of 20 20 Court No. 2 Bombay and others Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that for an individual dispute raised by the workman for classification of the higher post and for payment of salary for that post even though dispute is not sponsored by the substantial number of the workmen in industry, he would be entitled to be regularized on that post and would be entitled to payment of higher salary for work discharged on that post. Ld A.R for the workman has relied upon this judgment on the point that espousal is not necessary for claiming the salary of higher post. The judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court in respect to the industrial dispute and on the point of espousal of cause of workman clearly state that an individual dispute cannot be considered by the Industrial Tribunal unless the same has been sponsored or espoused by the group of workmen or union of the workmen. Therefore, this judgment do not provide any help to the workman. Even otherwise, workman has not been able to prove that he was discharging the duties of higher post as Chaudhary.
39) In view of this, the reference is answered in negative. Award is passed accordingly.
40) Copy of this award be sent to GNCT of Delhi for publication.
41) File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court on (SHAIL JAIN)
this 18th January, 2019. Presiding Officer,POIT02 Dwarka Court, New Delhi.
Digitally signed SHAIL by SHAIL JAIN
Date:
20 Out of 20 JAIN 2019.01.22
16:00:20 +0530