Delhi District Court
Rajender vs Ndmc on 13 February, 2026
POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHARAD GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
POIT No. 519/2019
CNR No. DLCT13-003994-2019
Sh. Rajender
S/o Sh. Dharampal,
R/o Farmana Kharkhoda Sonipat,
Haryana-131408
Through General Secretary,
Municipal Employees Union,
Agarwal Bhawan, G. T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi - 110054. ..... Workman
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
through Its Commissioner (North)
Dr. S. P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre,
J. L. Nehru Marg, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002. .... Management
Date of institution 04.11.2019
Order reserved on 13.02.2026
Dare of Award 13.02.2026
AWARD
1.Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute vide F.24 Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.02.13 16:31:21 +0530 Award 1 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC (136)/19/Ref./CD/Lab./603 dated 06.06.2019 for adjudication with following terms of the reference:
"Whether demand for regularization of Sh. Rajender and 1 Ors. (details as per Annexure A ) on the post of Driver with retrospective effect from their respective initial date of joining into the employment alongwith payment of entire difference of wages on the "Principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" with all consequential benefits thereof is justified and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?"
statement of Claim
2. The present statement of claim is being filed on behalf of two workmen whose service particulars are as under:-
Sl. No Name & Designation Date of Date of Present Age, M.No. Father's AppointmentRegularizati place of R/o the Name on posting workman
1. Sh. Driver 25.09.1996 01.04.2004 Disaster Aged about 49 Rajender Deptt., years, R/o S/o Sh. Luckno Farmana Dharampal w Road, Kharkhoda Timarpur Sonipat Civil Haryana-
Line 131408
Zone, Aadhar Card
NDMC No.958452664
823
M.No.967132
7017
2. Sh. Sunil Driver 11.09.1998 01.04.2005 DEMS Aged about 51
Kumar S/o Deptt., years R/o
Sh. Inder posting H.No.212,
Singh at Badali Siraspur
Salary Village, Delhi-
drawn at 110042
S.P. Aadhar Card
Zone No.561732365
NDMC 160
M.No.996853
9653
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2026.02.13
16:31:35
+0530
Award 2 of 23
POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC
3. Workman stated that they joined into the employment of the management w.e.f. the dates as mentioned above. They were taken in job as a daily rated/muster roll worker and were paid wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act, while their counterparts doing the identical work and the work of same value but who were being treated as regular employees are being paid their salary in proper pay scale and allowances.
4. It is stated that workmen were continuously discharging their services with the management since the dates mentioned above. They have unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to their credit. Although the workmen are supposed to be regularized since their respective initial dates of joining but the management has regularized them since the dates as mentioned in the table herein above.
5. It is submitted that non-regularization of services of the workmen since their initial dates of joining on the post of Drivers in proper pay-scale and allowances and non-payment of difference of salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work with all arrears thereof is totally illegal, bad, unjust and malafide and amounting to unfair labour practice as provided in Section 2 (ra) read with Item No.10 of Fifth Schedule and Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.02.13 16:31:53 +0530 Award 3 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC read with Section 25 T punishable under Section 25 U of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
6. It is averred that workmen acquired the status of permanent employees outright from the respective date of their joining after completing 90 days of continuous service as prescribed in the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Even otherwise, after completion of 240 days of continuous employment on regular basis as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "ONGC Itd. Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Ors. (2015) IILJ 257 SC".
7. 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 that 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 Digitally signed by SHARAD SSC 775". SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.02.13 16:32:01 +0530 Award 4 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC
8. It is stated that the services of various other employees have been regularized by the management since the respective initial date of joining but the management denied the same to the workman and being a daily wager the workman is discharging the same duties as being discharged by his regular counterparts and as such, he is entitled to same wages as is being paid to his regular counterparts on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" and in this regard a demand notice was served upon the management by registered A.D. post vide communication dated 30.10.2017, 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 due to adamant and non-co-operative attitude of the management.
9. Workmen has prayed that an Award be made in favour of the workmen and the management be directed to regularize the services of the workmen 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 joining till regularization and all consequential benefits thereof. Cost of litigation has also been prayed for.Digitally signed by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.02.13 16:32:10 +0530 Award 5 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC Written Statement
10.In the written statement, management has stated that the present dispute is not properly espoused by the Union.
11.It is submitted that the present dispute is stale and highly time barred because workmen have been working with the management since 25.06.1996 and 11.09.1998 respectively and have been regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2004 and 01.04.2005 respectively but they have raised the present issue for the first time in the year 2017 i.e. after 12 years of their regularization.
12.It is submitted that management has its own policy of regularization i.e. Phased manner Regularization Policy and the replying management regularizes its Daily Wager/Muster Roll Employee as per availability of the Posts and Funds, that too strictly as per their seniority and workmen cannot claim for regularization from the initial date of engagement along with consequential benefits as a matter of right and no worker/daily wager in the MCD has ever been regularized from the date of his initial engagement as a daily wager.
13.It is further submitted that the claim of the workmen for regularization as well as "equal pay for equal work" is not Digitally signed SHARAD by SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 16:32:26 +0530 Award 6 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC maintainable in view of the judgment passed in case titled as State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77.
14.It is stated that present case is not maintainable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Uma Rani vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies (2004) 7 SCC 112. Other averments made in the statement of claim have been denied and dismissal of the claim has been prayed for.
Rejoinder
15.Workman in rejoinder to the written statement denied all objections raised in the preliminary objections and reiterated the contentions made in the statement of claim. Issues
16.On 23.12.2021, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the present dispute is barred by time and delay?
OPM
2. As per terms of reference?
3. Relief.
Workman's Evidence
17.In order to prove their entitlement, workman Rajender and Sunil Kumar examined themselves as WW1 and WW2 and have tendered their evidence by way of their respective Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.02.13 16:32:36 +0530 Award 7 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC affidavits Ex.WW1/A and WW2/A. They have deposed on the lines of their claim. WW-1 has relied upon the documents as WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/6 and WW-2 has relied upon the document as Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/4 and has also relied upon documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/4 already exhibited by WW-1.
Management's Evidence
18.Management examined MW1 Sh. Ashish Gill, Administrative Officer DEMS Department, Rohini Zone, MCD . He has relied upon the documents as Ex.MW1/1 to Ex. MW1/4.
19.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 is barred by time and delay? OPM
20.It is pertinent to observe that the workmen had worked continuously since initial date of their appointment as drivers continuously and uninterruptedly even as per the assertion of MW-1 Sh. Ashish Gill. No doubt there is delay in raising the present dispute but the fact remains that workmen are still in service and as such, their right to seek retrospective regularization still exists.
Digitally signed by SHARADSHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.02.13 16:33:07 +0530 Award 8 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC
21.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 confirmed the award of the Labour Court without examining the relevant provisions of the Act and decisions of this Court referred to supra on the relevant issue regarding the limitation.."
22. It would be appropriate here to refer to the ratio in U.P. State Electricity Board and Another Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others 2003 SCC OnLine AII 1969 where in a matter regarding the regularization of a workman, the issue of delay was raised. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court negativing the argument on delay, has held as under:-
"It is not in every case that long delay becomes fatal. The delay in the present case is of such a nature that it would not be fatal to the case of the workman as only a declaration was sought regarding the date of his regularization and the benefits accruing therefrom and is clearly distinguishable from the case of Assistant Executive Engineer v. Shivalinga (supra), which has been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the matter the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that any delay in the instant case is fatal, is not acceptable." Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.02.13 16:33:14 +0530 Award 9 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC
23.In the light of above authoritative judgments, the claim of workman is required to be adjudged on merits rather to reject it on ground of delay, especially when the workman is still under employment of management. Furthermore, as observed in U.P. State electricity Borad supra, the 'delay' in the present case is not of such a nature that it would be fatal to the case of the workman as in this case also, only a declaration is being sought regarding the date of their regularization and the benefits accruing therefrom.
24.It is also urged on behalf of the workmen that the act of the management in not regularizing the workmen since the initial date is a continuing wrong and as such the question of delay or latches does not arise. In the facts of the present case, when the workmen are still in the employment of the management, I find force in the submissions of Ld AR for the workmen. Furthermore, MW1 was cross-examined in respect of previous representations made by the workmen and he stated that he could not say if the workmen were representing to the management since the very beginning of their employment regarding their regularization. Thus, looked at from any angle, I have no hesitation in holding that the Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.02.13 16:33:23 +0530 Award 10 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC present dispute is not barred by time and delay. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2: As per terms of reference?
25.The question to be decided is as to whether demand of the workmen for regularization on the post of Driver with retrospective effect is justified or not. It is not in dispute that the services of the workmen Rajender and Sunil were regularized on 01.04.2004 and 01.04.2005 respectively however, workmen are demanding that their service be regularized from date of their joining the employment i.e. w.e.f. 25.09.1996 and 11.09.1998 respectively. Before proceeding any further, it would be appropriate to refer to the cross-examination of MW-1 Sh. Ashish Gill, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
It is correct that the nature of work and working hours of the concerned workmen from their intital date of joining till the date of their regularization were same and identical as of regular drivers. It is correct that the concerned workmen were paid salary of driver under Minimum Wages Act from their initial date of joining till the date of regularization of their services. Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA SHARAD Date:
GUPTA 2026.02.13
16:33:30
+0530
Award 11 of 23
POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC
It is correct that the management has not framed any policy for regularizing the services of drivers who had worked as muster roll and treated as daily wager. I do not have any reason to show as to why the services of the concerned workmen were not regularized as a driver from initial date in regular pay scale with attendant benefits. The work and conduct of the workmen have been satisfactory through out. It is correct that the regular posts in the regular pay scale of drivers were lying vacant with the management since 1996 and the concerned workmen are working against the said posts.
It is correct that the documents filed by the workmen before this Tribunal are not disputed by the management in regard to its correctness which are Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/6 and WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/4. It is correct that the workmen were working against a vacant posts of driver. It is correct that the workmen were fulfilling the requisite qualification of driver when they were initially appointed. It is correct that all the service records of the concerned workmen from their initial dates of joining are available with the management.
26.Thus MW-1 has admitted that the workmen are doing identical work as their regular counter-parts from the initial dates of their joining. MW-1 admitted that the management did not have any policy for regularizing services of drivers Digitally signed SHARAD by SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA 16:33:37 Date: 2026.02.13 +0530 Award 12 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC who had worked as muster roll employees and were treated as daily wagers. He further admitted that he could not show any reason for which services of workmen were not regularized from the initial date. He further admitted that the work and conduct of the workmen was satisfactory through out and the management had regular vacant posts in regular pay scale of drivers since 1996 and the workmen were working against the said posts. He also admitted that the workmen were having the requisite qualification for appointment to post of driver when they were initially appointed.
27.Management has submitted that in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, appeal (civil) 3595- 3612 of 1999, and Uma Rani vs. Registrar Co-operative Society as reported in (2004) 7 SCC 112, it was held that regularization is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or any body or authority governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Regularization furthermore cannot 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. Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA SHARAD Date:
GUPTA 2026.02.13
16:33:45
+0530
Award 13 of 23
POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC
28.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.
29. In "Deen Bandu Garg & Others Vs South Delhi Muncipal Corporation & Others, WP (C) 11693/2019 ", Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under:
37.4 At the cost of reiteration, we deem it appropriate to once again state that Uma Devi does not hold, at any point of the judgment, that employees who satisfied the stipulated educational and experience qualifications and age requirement, who applied in response to an open advertisement, and who were subjected to a regular selection process in which all applicants were dispassionately evaluated, and who continued for several years, or decades, without complaint, against posts which were sanctioned, have no right to seek regularisation, and can be terminated at any point of time.
Jaggo holds that the manner in which Uma Devi has been interpreted and applied over the course of time has resulted in weaponization of the 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.
30.In above noted authoritative decision, Hon'ble Delhi High Digitally signed by SHARAD Court has observed that the employees who satisfy the SHARAD GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2026.02.13 16:36:54 +0530 Award 14 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC stipulated qualifications for the service and who continue for several years, or decades, without complaint, against posts which were sanctioned, have a right to seek regularisation, and the judgment of "Uma Devi" does not affect right of such employees. Hence, the reliance of the management on the judgment of "Uma Devi" (supra) to argue that this Industrial Tribunal does not have the power to regularise the services of the workman concerned is misplaced in law.
31.Now, coming to the factual matrix of this case, the service particulars of the workmen i.e. their date of joining, designation and date of regularization are not disputed, and the same were also admitted by the management witness during his cross-examination.
32. It is also established that the workmen were 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 their initial engagement by the management, which is why the workmen were appointed against the sanctioned post of Driver and worked as such till date. It is also established that despite performing the same work as being performed by the regular and permanent Driver both pre and post regularization, the workmen were given minimum wages. The Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.02.13 16:37:03 +0530 Award 15 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC said wages are lesser in comparison to what was being paid to the regular Driver working with the management.
33.There is no dispute about the fact that the workmen were discharging the duties of Driver from their initial date of joining till date. Management has permanent sanctioned posts of Driver in its establishment which suggests that the work of driver is permanent and perennial in nature. Even though the workmen were stated to be engaged on a daily rated/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. Rather, MW-1 admitted that the management has not framed any policy for regularizing services of drivers who had worked as muster roll employees and were treated as daily wagers.
35.Management has argued that the services of the workmen were regularized in accordance with the policy, and granting them regularization w.e.f. their initial date of joining will Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2026.02.13 16:37:11 +0530 Award 16 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC 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. Rather, as already observed MW-1 admitted that there was no such policy.
36.As already observed, management has failed to bring on record any policy specifically pertaining to regularization of 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.
37.Further more, 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.
38.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 Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.02.13 16:37:20 +0530 Award 17 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC prolonged periods of time, the statutory power of the industrial adjudicator to grant relief to the workmen, including the status of permanency, continues, in such a case, Industrial Tribunal has the power to pass an order for regularization of the workman and the management cannot take shelter under the guise of the argument that there was a "policy" in this regard.
39.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 workmen on a daily-wages basis in 1996 and 1998, especially when the work of a Driver is permanent and perennial in nature, and they were appointed against a sanctioned vacant post from the very beginning. Management has also failed to provide any basis as to how the cut-off date of 01.04.2004 and 01.04.2005 were determined with respect to the concerned workmen. In the absence of a clear basis, such an action of the management reeks of arbitrariness, as around eight and seven years respectively of service of the workmen were eaten away without any justification whatsoever.
40.Management has also argued that the workman have duly accepted their regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2004 and 01.04.2005 out of their free will with all the terms and Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.02.13 16:37:26 +0530 Award 18 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC conditions without any protest, therefore, at this stage they cannot retract from their acceptance and claim regularization on the post of Driver w.e.f. their initial date of joining. This tribunal does not find any consensus with this argument of the management. Merely because the workmen have "consented" to their regularization on the post of Driver w.e.f. 01.04.2004 and 01.04.2005 respectively, that does not give the license to the management to indulge in unfair labour practice. Given that the workmen are lowly paid employees and considering their socio-economic background, it is unreasonable to assume that they possess equal bargaining power in determining the terms of their employment, including decisions related to their regularization.
41.Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo Nath 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 Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.02.13 16:37:34 +0530 Award 19 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC 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.
42. In "Deen Bandu Garg & Others Vs South Delhi Muncipal Corporation & Others, WP (C) 11693/2019", decided on 16.04.2025, Hon'ble High Court regularized the service of the workmen by holding that:
(i) the applicants have rendered continuous and uninterrupted service for the MCD for decades except, in some cases, for temporary summer vacation breaks,
(ii) they are working as teachers, so that their work is perennial and their need continuous,
(iii) they were appointed against sanctioned posts,
(iv) they were appointed after a due process of selection, following an advertisement, which required the applicants to Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2026.02.13 16:37:41 +0530 Award 20 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC 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.
43.In the present case it stands proved that:
a) Workmen have rendered continuous and uninterrupted service for the MCD.
b) Workman are performing the permanent and perennial nature of work as Drivers.
c) The material on record including admissions of MW-1 and Office order Ex.WW1/5 establishes that they were appointed against sanctioned post.
d) There is nothing on record to indicate that the workmen does not fulfill qualifications for the job rather they were regularized by the management w.e.f 01.04.2004 and 01.04.2005.
44.In view of above discussions, it is held that the workmen are entitled to regularization in service on the post of Driver w.e.f. 25.09.1996 and 11.09.1998 in the regular pay scale with all consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise. As far as the question of equal pay for equal work is concerned, since the workmen are performing the same work as being performed by their regular counterparts and there Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.02.13 16:37:48 +0530 Award 21 of 23 POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC was no change in their work, working hours, roles, and responsibilities both pre and post-regularization, this Tribunal holds that they are entitled to the entire difference in wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work. In taking this view I am fortified by the pronouncement in Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637 Issue no. 2 is answered accordingly.
Relief
45. In view of the above findings, it is held that the workmen Rajender S/o Sh. Dharampal and Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Inder Singh are entitled to regularization in service on the post of Driver w.e.f. 25.09.1996 and 11.09.1998 respectively in the regular pay scale with all consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise. They are further entitled to the entire difference in wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work with all consequential benefits thereof.
46.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. 06.06.2019 till its realization. The award is passed accordingly. Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA SHARAD Date:
GUPTA 2026.02.13
16:37:55
+0530
Award 22 of 23
POIT No: 519/2019 Rajender Vs NDMC
47.Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
48. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in the open court on 13.02.2026.
Digitally signedSHARAD by SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 16:38:10 +0530 ( SHARAD GUPTA ) Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-II, Rouse Avenue District Court New Delhi Award 23 of 23