Delhi District Court
Fresh Application Was Filed Wherein It ... vs New Delhi Municipal Council 2005 I on 1 August, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH: PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR
COURT NO. XVI:ROOM NO.10: KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
LCA NO. 140/06
1. Ram Swaroop
2. Ram Abhilakh
3. Banbari lal
4. Hira Lal
5. chandkiran
6. Madan Lal
7. Him Chand
8. Kanwar Singh
9. Raj Kishore
10.Jaipal
11.Ajit Singh
12.Sukhbir Singh
13.Rameshwar
14.Dharambir
15.Satish Kumar
16.Satish Kumar
17.Devinder Kumar
18.Nanak Chand
19.Chandan Singh
20.Ramesh Kumar
21.Om Prakash
22.Sher Singh
23.Singhram
24.Rajender Singh
25.Ganga Prasad
26.Rajpal Singh
27.Gopi
28.Todar Mal
29.Ram Bachan
30.Subhash
LCA No.140/06 1/23
2
31.Rambir
32.Mahipal
33.Ram Nihor
34.Rajan Singh
35.Vijay Pal
36.Chhabil Dass
37.Satpal
38.jagpal
39.Baburam
40.Kamal Singh
41.Ramesh Chand
42.Ishwar Chand
43.Delel
44.Pardeep Kumar
45.chander Pal
46.Surender Singh
47.Uma Shanker
48.Chheda Lal
49.Balwan Singh
50.Parmod Kumar
51.Harikishan
52.Ramugarh
53.Sukhram
54.Malti Devi
55.Mahabali
56.Lachhu
57.Ramnik Singh
58.Ram Lal
59.Ganga Ram
60.Mahaku Ram
61.Mahabir
62.Balbir Singh
63.Rohtas
64.Bachu lal
65.Mahak Singh
66.Rajpal Singh
LCA No.140/06 2/23
3
67.Rishi Kumar
68.Inder Kumar
69.Satish layal
70.Ram Bhawan
71.Kishan lal
72.Krishan Pal
73.Satbir
74.Naresh Pal
75.Dori lal
76.Prakash Chand
77.Suresh Chand
78.Devibaksh
79.Shantibahadur
80.Ramniwas
81.Dalbir
82.Bhoop Singh
83.Rambir Sharma
84.Brahma Singh
85.Rajababu
86.Surajbhan
87.Brahmaprakash
88.Jhikku
89.Shobharam
90.Satyawan
91.Dharambir
92.Sona
93.Prem Kumar
94.Raj Kumar
95.Yashpal singh
96.Devi Singh
97.Ram Kishan
98.Santosh Kumar
99.Shripal
100.Dulare Mohan Pal
101.Roop Chand
102.Panna Lal
LCA No.140/06 3/23
4
103.Ranbir
104.Ganga Ram
105.Bishram
106.Harishanker
107.Mangelal
108.Rajbir
109.Moti Ram
110.Chaman Lal
111.Shaligram
112.Vinod Kumar
113.Kishan Lal
114.Atar Singh
115.Satish Chand
116.Vinod Kumar
117.Jaswant Singh
118.Laxmi Prasad
119.Urmila Devi
120.Suraj Pal
121.Sukhapal Singh
122.Laxman Prasad Sharma
123.Sukhpal Singh
124.Keshar Singh
125.Barelal
126.Satpal
127.Devender Kumar
128.dhuram
129.Kalu Ram
130.Nandlal
131.Rajpal
132.Krishna Datt
133.Shyam Singh
134.Jeevan
135.Thakuri Singh
136.Bharti Devi
137.Ram Rati
138.Raj Bahadur
LCA No.140/06 4/23
5
139.Anil Kumar Sharma
140.Bala
141.Hari Singh
142.Roshai yadav
143.Matadin
144.Gyashi
145.Shiv Kumar
146.Balbir singh
147.Dushyant Kumar ...... Workmen
VERSUS
MCD
Through its commissioner
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk
Delhi. .... Management
Date of Institution : 05.11.05
Judgment reserved : 19.07.11
Date of decision : 01.08.11
O R D E R
1. Fresh application was filed wherein it is stated that all the workmen are in the category of Group 'C' & 'D' and are entitled to the amounts of Summer Uniforms and Winter Uniforms. It is stated that the all the workmen are entitled to the amount of liveries (Uniform & Stitching charges) as per calculation refereed as under :
LCA No.140/06 5/23
6 Sl. Name of Workman Designation Uniform Amount Due No Due w.e.f (In Rupees) 1 Ram Swaroop Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 2 Ram Abhilakh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 3 Banbari lal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 4 Hiralal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 5 Chandkiran Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 6 Madan lal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 7 Him Chand Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 8 Kanwar Singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 9 Raj Kishore Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 10 Jaipal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 11 Ajit singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 12 Sukhbir singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 13 Rameshwar Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 14 Dharambir Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 15 Satish Kumar Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 16 Satish Kumar Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 17 Devinder Kumar Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 18 Nanak Chand Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 19 Chandan Singh Chowkidar 2000 to 2005 4211 20 Ramesh Kumar Chowkidar 2000 to 2005 4211 21 Om Prakash Chowkidar 2000 to 2005 4211 22 Sher Singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 23 Singhram Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 24 Rajender singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 25 Ganga Prasad Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 26 Rajpal Singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 27 Gopi Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 28 Todar Mal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 LCA No.140/06 6/23 7 Sl. Name of Workman Designation Uniform Amount Due No Due w.e.f (In Rupees) 29 Ram Bachan Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 30 Subhash Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 31 Rambir Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 32 Mahipal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 33 Ram Nihor Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 34 Rajan Singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 35 Vijay Pal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 36 chhabil Das Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 37 Satpal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 38 Jagpal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 39 Baburam Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 40 Kamal Singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 Ramesh chand Officiating 2000 to 2005 41 Choudhary 3933 42 Ishwar Chand Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 43 Dalel Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 44 Pradeep Kumar Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 45 Chandra Pal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 46 Surender Pal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 47 Uma shanker Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 48 Chheda Pal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 49 Balwan Singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 50 Parmod Kumar Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 51 Harikishan Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 52 Ramugarh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 53 Sukhram Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 54 Malti Devi Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 55 Mahabali Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 LCA No.140/06 7/23 8 Sl. Name of Workman Designation Uniform Amount Due No Due w.e.f (In Rupees) 56 Lachhu Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 57 Ramanik Singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 58 Ramlal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 59 Ganga Ram Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 60 Mahaku Ram Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 61 Mahabir Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 62 Balbir Singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 63 Rohtas Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 64 Bachu Lal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 65 Mahak Singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 66 Rajpal Singh Mali(Off.Ch.) 2000 to 2005 3933 67 Rishi Kumar Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 68 Inder Kumar Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 69 Satish layal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 70 Ram Bhawan Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 71 Kishan Lal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 72 Krishal Pal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 73 Satbir Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 74 Naresh Pal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 75 Dori Lal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 76 Prakash Chand Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 77 Suresh Chand Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 78 Devibaksh Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 79 Shantbahadur Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 80 Ramniwas Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 81 Dalbir Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 82 Bhoop Singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 83 Rambir Sharma Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 LCA No.140/06 8/23 9 Sl. Name of Workman Designation Uniform Amount Due No Due w.e.f (In Rupees) 84 Brahma Singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 85 Rajababu Mali 2001 to 2005 3933 86 Surajbhan Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 87 Brahmaprakash Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 88 Jhikku Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 89 Shobhram Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 90 Satyawan Chowkidar 2000 to 2005 4211 91 Dharambir Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 92 Sona Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 93 Prem Kumar Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 94 Raj Kumar Chowkidar 2000 to 2005 4211 95 Yashpal Singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 96 Devi Singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 97 Ram Kishan Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 98 Santosh Kumar Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 99 Shripal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 100 Dulare Mohan Pal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 101 Roop Chand Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 102 Panna Lal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 103 Ranbir Chowkidar 1998 to 2005 5851 104 Ganga Ram Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 105 Bishram Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 106 Harishanker Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 107 Mangelal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 108 Rajbir Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 109 Moti Ram Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 110 Chaman Lal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 111 Shilgram Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 LCA No.140/06 9/23 10 Sl. Name of Workman Designation Uniform Amount Due No Due w.e.f (In Rupees) 112 Vinod Kumar Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 113 Kishanlal Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 114 Atar Singh Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 115 Satish Chand Mali 2000 to 2005 3933 116 Vinod Kumar Chowkidar 2000 to 2005 4211 117 Jaswant Singh Chowkidar 2000 to 2005 4211 118 Laxmi Prasad Mali 1999 to2005 5258 119 Urmila Devi Mali 1999 to 2005 6283 120 Suraj Pal Chowkidar 2001 to 2005 4211 121 Sukhapal Singh Chowkidar 2001 to 2005 4211 122 Laxman Prasad Sharma Pump Operator 1999 to 2005 5258 123 Sukhpal Singh Tech. Supervisor 1997 to 2005 6583 124 Keshar Singh Chowkidar 1999 to 2005 5851 125 Barelal Mali 2002 to 2005 2782 126 Satpal Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 127 Devender Kumar Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 128 Dhuram Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 129 Kalu Ram Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 130 Nandlal Chowkidar 2001 to 2005 4211 131 Rajpal Mali 1997 to 2005 6583 132 Krishna Datt Mali 2001 to 2005 3933 133 Shyam Singh Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 134 Jeevan Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 135 Thakuri Singh Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 136 Bharti Devi Kooli 2001 to 2005 5229 137 Ram Rati Kooli 2001 to 2005 5229 138 Raj Bahadur Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 139 Anil Kumar Sharma Mali 1997 to 2005 6583 LCA No.140/06 10/23 11 Sl. Name of Workman Designation Uniform Amount Due No Due w.e.f (In Rupees) 140 Bala Kooli 2001to 2005 5229 141 Hari Singh Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 142 Roshai Yadav Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 143 Matadin Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 144 Gyashi Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 145 Shiv Kumar Mali 1999 to 2005 5258 146 Balbir Singh Mali 1997 to 2005 6583 147 Dushyant Kumar Chowkidar 1999 to 2005 5851 It is prayed that this court may kindly compute the benefits of liveries in terms of money
2. Notice of application was issued to management. AR for management appeared and filed WS/Reply wherein it is stated that the present claim is not maintainable in view of the fact that the Labour Court under section 33 C (2) of ID Act cannot first decide right to entitlement and then compute the amount due under the said entitlement. It is further stated that the application of the applicant is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected as the same is not in accordance with the rule 62 (2) of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957 and has not moved on the prescribed 'Form K3' of the said rules. It is further stated that this court is having no jurisdiction to decide the claim of the applicant in the present application, it is an admitted fact that there is no prior adjudication or settlement between the parties on the question of payment of cost and stitching charges if liveries are not provided to them. It is further stated that there LCA No.140/06 11/23 12 are no such provisions for purchase of uniforms from an open market by the employees themselves. It is further submitted that the claimants have not taken any permission from the management before the alleged purchase. It is submitted that the uniform can not be purchased from the open market but is the prerogative of the management to provide the same to the workman. It is further stated that the uniform cannot be computed in terms of money as such this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present application under section 33 C (2) of ID Act. It is submitted that apparently there are the disputed questions of facts in the present case as such the same can only be adjudicated u/s 10 of the ID Act and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present application without prior adjudication of the issues. It is further submitted that in the absence of preexisting right section 33 C (2) cannot be used to by pass the necessity of adjudication of the Industrial Dispute to establish a substantive right under section 10. It is further stated that the relief claimed by the applicant by way of present application is not covered under section 33 C (2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as the matter in dispute has not yet been adjudicated upon by any court of competent jurisdiction and there is no prior settlement or award against the employer in this regard.
3. Subsequently, Rejoinder to the W.S. of the management was filed wherein the workman has denied the allegations made in the WS and reiterated the averments contained in the claim.
4. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 13.12.06 : LCA No.140/06 12/23
13
1. Whether petition u/s 33C(2) of I.D. Act is maintainable or not?
2. To what amount workmen are entitled?
3. Relief.
Issue no. 1 was taken as preliminary issue.
5. Arguments were heard on the point of maintainability. Order on preliminary issue was passed vide order dated 05.08.08 by my Ld. Predecessor wherein it was held that the petition filed under section 33 C (2) of ID Act is not maintainable.
6. On 15.11.10 file was remanded back by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thereafter, case was adjourned for WE on the issue of entitlement which was already framed on 13.12.06.
To what amount workmen are entitled?
7. Sh. B. K Prasad was examined as WW 1 and Sh. Ram Bhawan was examined as WW 2.
8. Sh. B. K Prasad was examined as WW 1 and relied upon the documents Ex. WW1/1 to WW1/8.
In cross examination of WW 1, he deposed that he was not a workman of MCD. He admitted that his name was not appearing in the list of witnesses on behalf of union. He further stated that he had given a written representation to LCA No.140/06 13/23 14 the MCD regarding the payment of uniform and stitching charges but the same has not been filed on record. He admitted that in the appointment letter there was no provision of payment/ issue of uniform/stitching charges. He stated voluntarily that workman has right to receive these after completion of one year. He further stated that workmen had been told that if the workmen were not wearing uniform they would not be given washing allowance. He admitted that the instructions to wear uniform was not in written form.
WW 2 Sh. Ram Bhawan, in evidence by way of affidavit, supported the averments made in the claim.
In cross examination, he stated that he had been claiming the uniform as they were getting the same from the management. There was no provision for payment for supply of uniform. He stated voluntarily that they had been getting the said facilities after completion of one year. He further stated that he had not taken any written approval from the department for stitching uniform himself. He suggested it wrong that he had never got the uniform stitched. He had not been provided uniform and dress allowance since 1999. He further suggested it wrong that MCD can take the work from the workman even without providing uniform/stitching and dress allowance. He further suggested it wrong that he was paid all the uniform by the management. He stated voluntarily that uniforms were not supplied for the period 1999 to 2005.
9. No MW has been examined on behalf of management. Hence, ME was closed.
LCA No.140/06 14/23
15
10. Final arguments heard on behalf of both the parties.
AR for workman stated that several category of employees were deputed in the department of MCD to perform its obligatory functions. It is stated that the workmen are entitled to get the benefits of liveries/uniforms and washing allowance to wash these liveries supplied by the management. It is further stated that the workmen in the category of Group C and D like Choudhary, Mali, Chowkidar, Sweeper, Machineman, Hedgmen, pump Operator, Blacksmith, Bhisti, Bullackman, Asst. Pump Driver, Painter, Beldar, Driver, Fitter, Tech. Supervisor, etc. are entitled to the cost including stitching charges and quantum of liveries as per the orders issued by the Deptt. Of Personnel & Training, Govt. Of India. It is further stated that as per rules they should have been distributed the uniform but the employees have neither properly been distributed uniform nor cash payment in lieu of uniform has been paid to them since 1999.
On the other hand, AR for management has stated that the application of the applicant is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected as the same is not in accordance with the rule 62 (2) of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957 and has not moved on the prescribed 'Form K3' of the said rules. It is further stated that this court is having no jurisdiction to decide the claim of the applicant in the present application, without prior adjudication of the issues involved in the present case under section 10 of the ID Act. It is further stated that for entitlement of a claim under section 33 C (2) of ID Act there must be an existing right in favour of the workmen and against the management.
12. I have seen the claim, reply, evidence, documents and considered the LCA No.140/06 15/23 16 submissions advanced by both the parties and I feel that the present LCA deserves to be dismissed :
(i) AR for management states that the petition under section 33 C (2) is time barred and cites Kapur S.K. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council 2005 I LLJ P. 219 stating that the claim as old as 1999 onwards is being made in the present petition and delayed claim bars the entitlement of the workman. On the other hand, AR for workman states that Limitation Act is not applicable in the proceedings under section 33 C (2) and cited Chief Mining Engineer East India Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar and ors., 1968 SCR 140 wherein our Lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"There is no justification in introducing a period of limitation provided in the limitation act into the provisions of section 33 C (2)."
I have perused the authorities cited by AR for workman and AR for management. The citations by AR for workman relates to those cases where the right of the workman has already been established. While the present case is with respect to the decision of the right by this court e.g in Chief Mining Engineer East India Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar and ors., 1968 SCR 140. The only question was for implementation of award. The entitlement and right was already decided by the court. In that circumstances it was held by their Lordship of Supreme Court that Limitation Act is not applicable rather to say there is no limitation in application under section 33 C (2) of ID Act. Similarly in LCA No.140/06 16/23 17 Town Municipal Council, Athani Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli & ors.,(1970) I SCR 51 where the right was already there as there was a question of the entitlement of benefit. In National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs. Pritam Singh Gill and ors., (1973) 1 SCR 40, the workman was seeking legal benefit during suspension period after dismissal order was passed against him. Naturally right is there with the workman and under that circumstance it was held by their Lordship of Supreme Court that Right cannot be defeated by law of Limitation. In Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopal Bhiva and ors., (1964) Vol. 3 SCR 709, what was to be decided was to implementation of the award.
Hence, the cases cited by the AR for workman are with respect to those decisions where the right was already decided in favour of workman and in such cases, it was held by the superior court that Limitation Act is not applicable.
(ii) However, there are other set of cases where the Supreme Court has held that the delayed claim is bad claim as the Labour law or Tribunal was called upon to decide upon the right of the workman. In such cases the delay was a ground for negating the claim of the workman. In the present case the right of the workman has not been decided yet. The workman in the present case is seeking to decide his right as well as to calculate on the basis of decision of the right. In such cases, the workman should have approached the court as early as possible. Hence, this fact goes against the workman as claim as old as of 1999 is being made in the present petition filed in the year 2006.
State of Punjab Vs. Sh. Kali Dass & ors. 1997 LLR 349, Hon'ble Punjab LCA No.140/06 17/23 18 and Haryana High court has discussed on the point of delay and limitation in raising the Industrial Dispute and denied the relief to the workman after raising the Industrial Dispute after expiry of three years.
(iii) Section 33 C (2) provides as under :
"Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government (within a period not exceeding three months.)"
In Jessop & Co. M. Mukherjee, 1975 Lab IC 1307, the following principles, for grant of relief under section 33 C (1) and C(2) were given :
(1) Where any money is due under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of chapter 5A, s 33 C (1) will be attracted.
(2) The money due under s 33 C (1) may be a specified amount or may have to be arrived at by arithmetical calculation or verification simplicitor.
In other words, in cases where there is no dispute as to the amount or as to its computation s 33 C (1) would apply.
(3) Section 33 C (1) is more comprehensive than s 33 C (1). It applies not only to cases of a settlement or award or to cases under chapter 5A of LCA No.140/06 18/23 19 the Act, but to other cases as well.
(4) when money due is not specified or the benefit capable of being computed in terms of money, has not been determined, s 33 C (2) would be attracted in as much as the labour court, by a process of computation to be found out and applied by it, has to determine the amount of money due. In other words, in cases of disputes as to calculation or computation of money due or benefit capable of being computed in terms on money, s 33 C (2) has to be invoked.
(5) Section 33 C (2) also enables a labour court to inquire into and decide upon the right to receive the money to be computed, provided that the determination of that right is incidental or ancillary to the computation.
(iv) The petitioners are not clear whether payment with respect to uniform and stitching charges are part of the service conditions or not. If these are part of the service condition, then claimants are entitled to receive the same. If these are not part of the service condition, then they have to prove the existence of their right through Industrial Dispute. It is a fact that no industrial dispute has been raised by the petitioners till now with respect to payment of uniform as well as stitching charges. WW1 Sh. B.K. Prasad, who deposed as President of the MCD, General Mazdoor Union, stated that he filed the present suit/petition on the basis of service condition under which workmen are entitled to uniform and stitching charges. While stating so, it is admitted by WW1 that in the LCA No.140/06 19/23 20 appointment letter, there is no provision of payment/issue of uniform/stitching charges. Similarly, WW2 stated that there is no provision for supply of uniform. WW2 further stated that, "it is incorrect to suggest that there is no provision in the general service condition to pay for uniform and washing allowance." He further stated that he has not read General Service Conditions. If payment for supply of uniform and stitching charges is part of the General Service Condition, then my inference is that such service condition has not been placed on record. Since such general service condition has not been placed on record, the petitioner has failed to prove the right with respect to the same.
In MCD v/s Rohtash, C.W.P.No.1216 & C.M.No.2224/95 dt. 28.02.96, P.554 it has been held that:
"Determination of the dispute relating to service condition could be undertaken only on a reference of the dispute. Such prior determination is necessary for computation of benefits under Section 33C(2)."
(v) For uniform, usually a block year is provided. For each block year, MCD passes resolution in the house and on the basis of resolution, circulars are issued. It is well established that circular has no legal enforceability unless backed by resolution of the house of the MCD. Even if, the circular can be enforced, then the circular has a validity only for the period of block year. Once the block year is lapsed, then any payment or enforceability of the circular is also lapsed. The entitlement with respect to the block year is similar to the LCA No.140/06 20/23 21 entitlement to Govt. Servant for LTC. If in a particular block year, Govt. Servant does not avail his LTC then by the end of the block year, his claim lapses. There is no provision for payment of LTC after the block year. It is a facility to be used and then the Govt. Servant is entitled for reimbursement. Anyhow, the Govt. Servant has to prove that he used the benefit and on the basis of that, he is entitled for reimbursement. In the present LCA, none of the workmen has proved by enclosing receipts that they have purchased the uniform. Further, they have also not proved by receipt that they incurred expenses of stitching. Unless and until, the receipts are filed, the workmen are not entitled for reimbursement.
(vi) A circular dt. 28.09.99 was filed by the management wherein it was held that,"Nondistribution of the available items of uniform will be all lapsed on the part of concerned department, which may please note."
(vii) The claimants have placed on record certain circulars of various dates of various block years. These circulars only provides for stitching charges with the directions to collect the unstitched uniform from the stores. Why the workmen could not collect the uniform from the store and if the uniform was not available, whether they made any complaint to the Higher Authorities during the block year or not. Such vital facts, which are necessary, has not been placed on record by the petitioners.
(viii) AR for management also placed on record O.M. No. F14/9/72 JCA dt. 31.10.72 stating that "in no case should uniforms be supplied after LCA No.140/06 21/23 22 the expiry of the season for which they are intended. It has not been possible to agree to such relaxation as the concerned employees cannot obviously use the uniforms in the season which has already expired." If uniform cannot be supplied by this O.M. after expiry of season, then how can the equivalent money can be given to the workmen.
In Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. Ranjodh Singh (2007) 2 SCC 491, our lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"a policy decision cannot be adopted in terms of a circular letter/executive instruction."
(ix) Vide O.M No. 23/9370JCA dated 4.12.71, it is provided that the supply of uniform is subject to the condition that these cannot be claimed as a right and that the uniforms do not become the personal property of the employee.
(x) In the same O.M mentioned above it is provided that in no case should uniforms be supplied after the expiry of the season for which they are intended. The life of uniforms should be reckoned on a seasonal basis. It is further provided that in this very O.M that the reimbursement of stitching charges at the prescribed rates should be done only after the stitched uniforms are produced with the bill of the stitching charges.
(xi) There is no circular or resolution placed on record by the petitioners LCA No.140/06 22/23 23 that in the absence of supply of uniform, they are entitled to the cost of the uniform. The petitioners have given some cost. Whether that cost is correct or not, has not been verified. That could have been verified if the petitioners have purchased the uniform with a receipt. Vital facts which are required have not been provided by the petitioner.
13. In view of the authorities and the above reasons, I feel that workmen are not entitled to any relief. Hence, the application of the claimants is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance by Ahlmad. Announced in the Open Court (DAYA PRAKASH) st on 1 August, 2011 Additional District & Session Judge Presiding Officer labour Court XVI Karkardooma Courts : Delhi.
LCA No.140/06 23/23