Delhi District Court
Sh. Sant Prasad vs Ms North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 18 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANJUSHA WADHWA:
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
F. No.-24(104)/ Lab./CD/15/584
Dated:01.07.2015
POIT NO.: 363/2016
Workman:
Sh. Sant Parsad
S/o Sh. Prem Parsad (EMD)
R/o B-1, Shanker Garden, Najafgarh Road,
Delhi-110093
Through
Delhi Nagar Nigam
Workshop Karamchari Sangh®
14-A, Old Market, Timarpur, Delhi- 110054
Vs.
The Management of :
The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
4th Floor, Civic Centre, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Minto Road, New Delhi
Date of Institution : 01.07.2015
Date of Arguments : 06.11.2025
Date of Award : 18.11.2025
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 1/13
AWAR D
1. The Labour Department, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi has
referred the dispute arising between the parties named above for adjudication
to this tribunal with following terms of reference:
"Whether the workman Sh. Sant Prasad S/o Sh. Prem
Prasad is entitled for benefits of 1st ACP in the pay scale of
Rs. 4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.04.2002 and 2nd ACP in the pay
scale of Rs. 4500-7000 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 with all
consequential benefits and if so what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
2. It is stated that the workman is working in electric division of
Engineering Department of North Delhi Municipal Corporation as a
Electric Motor Driver and was regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1990 in the pay
scale of Rs. 775-1025.
3. It is further stated that the aforesaid workman raised industrial dispute
before the Ld. Industrial Tribunal vide I.D. No. 19/05 alleging that the
MCD had paid wrong pay scale at the time of his regularization and he
was entitled for higher pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 as revised from time to
time as per pay commission recommendations. It is further stated that the
Ld. PO Industrial Tribunal-II was pleased to pass an award dated
14.08.2006 in favour of the workman granting pay scale of Rs. 950-1500
as revised from time to time from the date of his regularization. Vide
order dated 11.08.2011, said award was implemented by the management
granting the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 (Rs. 3050-4590) w.e.f.
01.04.1990.
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 2/13
4. It is further stated that in terms of separate Office order dated 21.03.2007,
the MCD prior to implementation of aforesaid award granted 1st
upgradation of ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 2750-4400 which is
corresponding pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540 (old pay scale) but failed to
grant corresponding higher pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 under the 1 st
upgradation of ACP scheme w.e.f. 01.04.2002 and Rs. 4500-7000 under
the 2nd upgradation of ACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.04.2010 to the concerned
workman. It is further stated that the initial pay scale is higher than the
pay scale under the 1st upgradation.
5. It is further stated that MCD has already granted pay scale of Rs. 4000-
6000 under 1st upgradation of ACP scheme and Rs. 4500-7000 under 2nd
upgradation of ACP scheme to the following workmen/counterparts who
are on the same post and discharging same duties and responsibilities and
awards were also passed in their favour granting similar pay scale.
Name Post 1st ACP 2nd ACP
1. Sh. Shamsher EMD 4000-6000 ------------
Singh
2. Sh. Net Ram EMD 4000-6000 4500-7000
3. Sh. Ramesh EMD 4000-6000 4500-7000
Chand
4. Sh. Jhamman Lal EMD 4000-6000 ------------
5. Sh. Dower Ali EMD 4000-6000 4500-7000
6. It is further stated that the other similarly situated following workmen
who are getting the similar pay scale i.e. Rs. 3050-4590 are also getting
higher pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 under 1st upgradation of ACP Scheme
as:-
Srl. Name Post 1st ACP 2nd ACP
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 3/13
No.
1 Sh. Phool Singh Lift Opt. 4000-6000 ---------
2 Sh. Sripal Lift Opt. 4000-6000 4500-7000
3 Sh. Ram Phool Lift Opt. 4000-6000 4500-7000
4 Sh. Hari Giri Lift Opt. 4000-6000 4500-7000
5 Sh. Shekhar Lift Opt. 4000-6000 4500-7000
Chand
6 Sh. Manjeet WM-II 4000-6000 4500-7000
Singh
7 Sh. Subhash WM-II 4000-6000 4500-7000
Chand
8 Sh. Chander Pal WM-II 4000-6000 4500-7000
9 Sh. Kasturi Lal WM-II 4000-6000 4500-7000
10 Sh. Arun Kumar WM-II 4000-6000 4500-7000
11 Sh. Rajender WM-II 4000-6000 4500-7000
Singh
12 Sh. Bhushan WM-II 4000-6000 4500-7000
Sharma
13 Sh. Chand Kiran WM-II 4000-6000 4500-7000
14 Sh. Braham Dutt WM-II 4000-6000 4500-7000
15 Sh. Suresh WM-II 4000-6000 4500-7000
Kumar
7. It is further stated that the respondent North Delhi Municipal Corporation
has made discrimination with the concerned workmen by not giving benefits of 1st upgradation and 2nd upgradation under ACP Scheme equivalent to their counterparts. It is further stated that the workman alongwith other workmen made representations to the Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 27.09.2011, 16.12.2011 and 26.12.2011 making request to grant higher pay scale under the ACP POIT-292-2016 Page No. 4/13 Scheme and thereafter, paid several visits to the concerned officials but of no avail.
8. It is further stated that the aforesaid workman is member of the union for several years and the Union "Delhi Nagar Nigam Workshop Karamchari Sangh (Regd.)" sent a demand notice on 16.12.2011 to the Commissioner raising the demand of the workman but till date no communication has been received from the management.
9. That the concerned workman has filed the present claim stating that he is legally entitled for benefits of 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 and is also entitled to arrears of difference of salary with all consequential benefits.
Written Statement
10. Written Statement was filed on behalf of the Management, wherein the management has taken preliminary objection that the present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the Delhi Nagar Nigam Workshop Karamchari Sangh (Regd.) has no locus standi to raise the present dispute and that the aforesaid Union is not recognized Union of the Management and that the present dispute has not been properly espoused by the Union and that no demand notice has been served upon the management. On merits, the management stated that the workman is not entitled to any relief as the benefit of 1st ACP and 2nd MACP have already been granted to the workman.
11. It is further stated that the Wiremen or Lift Operator are having different RRs, having no concern with the RRs of the EMD and the post of POIT-292-2016 Page No. 5/13 Wiremen is a promotional post of EMD and the post of Lift Operator is of a different cadre and has no concern with the cadre of EMD.
12. It is further stated that as per DOPT OM dated 10.02.2000, minimum benefit of Rs. 100/- under FR 22(1) (a) (I) is to be given to the EMD, on grant of the First Financial Upgradation and according to the aforesaid guidelines of the DOPT, the management issued Office order bearing no. HC/HP/Engg. (HQ)/2014/146 dated 04.06.2014 regarding grant of First and Second ACP. The management thus prayed for dismissal of Statement of Claim.
13. Vide order dated 04.09.2017, the following issues were framed for adjudication by the learned predecessor of this Tribunal as:-
(1.) Whether the claim of the workman has been properly espoused by the Union? OPW (2.) As per terms of reference. OPW (3.) Relief.
Workman's Evidence
14. In order to prove his entitlement, workman has examined himself as WW1 and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit as Ex. WWI/A. He deposed on the lines of his claim and has relied upon the documents as Ex. WW1/1 to WW1/10.
15. Workman has also examined Sh. Ajit Kumar Kalia, General Secretary, Delhi Nagar Nigam Workshop Karamchari Sangh as WW-2. WW-2 has relied upon documents related to registration of Union, espousal of the cause of workman and office orders of other similarly situated workmen as Ex. WW2/1 to Ex. WW2/16.
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 6/13Management's Evidence
16. In order to prove its case, management has examined Sh. Tarun Kumar, Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as MW1. He has relied upon documents i.e. Ex. MW1/1 to Ex. MW1/6.
Analysis and Discussion Issue No.1: Whether the claim of the workman has been properly espoused by the Union? OPW
17. Onus to prove this issue was on the management. Ld. AR for the management contended that the present dispute has not been espoused by the union. On the other side, Ld. AR for the workman submitted that the workman was member of Municipal Employees Union and the said union has espoused the grievance of the workman.
18. In order to give jurisdiction to the appropriate government to refer the dispute to the Tribunal/Labour Court, it was essential for the workman to show that his individual dispute for regularization was sponsored or espoused by the union of the workmen. The constitution bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) Vs. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) Civil Appeal No.532/1963 decided on 16.03.1965 has held in paragraph No.3 as under:
"3. Section 2(k) defines an "industrial dispute" as meaning any dispute or difference between employers and employees, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the condition of labour, of any person. This definition shows that POIT-292-2016 Page No. 7/13 before any dispute raised by any person can be said to be an industrial dispute, it must be shown that it is connected with the employment or non-employment of that person. This condition is satisfied in the present case, because the dispute is in relation to the dismissal of 18 workmen, and in that sense, it does relate either to their employment or non- employment. The question however, still remains whether it is a dispute between employers and workmen. Literally construed, this definition may take within its sweep a dispute between a single workman and his employer, because the plural, in the context, will include the singular. Besides, in the present case, the dispute is in fact between 18 workmen on the one hand, and their employer on the other, and that satisfies the requirement imposed by the fact that the word "workmen" in the context is used in the plural. But the decisions of this Court have consistently taken the view that in order that dispute between a single employee and his employer should be validly referred under s. 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 workmen or by a number of workmen. In other words, if a workman is dismissed by his employer and the dismissed workman's case is that his dismissal is wrongful, he can legitimately have the said dispute referred for adjudication before an Industrial Tribunal under s. 10(1) of the Act, provided a claim for such a reference is supported either by the Union to which he belongs or by a number of workmen, vide Central Provinces Transport Services v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan MANU/SC/0067/1956 : (1957) ILLJ 27 SC and The Newspapers Ltd. v. The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P. MANU/SC/0078/1957 : (1957) IILLJ 1 SC."
19. In the instant case, the workman has categorically deposed that he made representations to the Commissioner NDMC on 27.09.2011, 16.12.2011 and 26.12.2011 Ex. WW-1/8 colly making request to grant higher pay POIT-292-2016 Page No. 8/13 scale under ACP scheme. He also deposed to have sent demand notice dated 16.12.2011 Ex WW-1/9 to the Commissioner MCD and relied upon copy of minutes of meeting of Delhi Nagar Nigam Workshop Karamchari Sangh wherein the Union passed the resolution to espouse the cause of workman as Ex. WW1/10.
20. Further, WW2 Ajeet Kumar Kalia, General Secretary, Delhi Nagar Nigam Workshop Karamchari Sangh has also relied upon the relevant documents i.e. registration certificate of the Union as Ex WW-2/1, Receipts of membership subscription of workman as Ex. WW-2/2, copy of minutes of meeting of espousal dated 09.11.2011 as Ex. WW-2/4.and espousal letter as Ex. 2/5.
21. Pertinently, WW-1 and WW-2 were not cross examined at all on any aspect. Rather, during cross examination MW-1 Sh. Tarun Kumar has admitted receipt of the demand notice dated 16.12.2011.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.M Jhadav Vs Forbes Gokak Ltd 2005 (3) SCC 202 has observed as under:-
"............As far as espousal is concerned there is no particular form prescribed to effect such espousal. Doubtless, the Union must normally express itself in the form of a resolution which should be proved if it is in issue. However proof of support by the Union may also be available aliunde. It would depend upon the facts of each case. The Tribunal had addressed its mind to the question, appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary and found that the Union had espoused the appellant's cause. ........."
23. In the instant case, the testimony of the WW-1 and WW-2 remained unrebutted by the management. On the other side, nothing has been placed on record by the management to rebut the factum of espousal by POIT-292-2016 Page No. 9/13 the Union. Even otherwise, the objection with regard to espousal of the cause of the workman is merely a technical one, and does not stand in light of the aforementioned position of law and evidence placed by the workman on record. As such, it is held that the claim of the workman has been properly espoused by the Delhi Nagar Nigam Workshop Karamchari Sangh. Accordingly, issue stands decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Issue No.2 : As per the terms of reference?
24. Question to be decided is whether workman is entitled for benefits of 1st ACP in the pay scale of 4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.04.2002 and 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 with all consequential benefits.
25. Ld. AR for the workman submitted that the pay scale granted to him i.e. the 1st and 2nd upgradation of ACP (Assured Career Progression) Scheme was not correctly implemented by the management. He claims entitlement to pay scales of Rs.4000-6000 from 01.04.2002 and Rs. 4500-7000 from 01.04.2010 under the ACP scheme. Workman has also highlighted disparity with similarly situated counterparts.
26. On the other side, the Ld. AR for the management submitted that the workman was given the correct pay scale and contended that the workman is not entitled to the pay scale as claimed by him in the present dispute and placed reliance upon the DOPT circular dated 10.02.2000 Ex MW-1/1 and office order dated 04.06.2014 Ex MW-1/2 issued by the management. It is also contended that the claimant cannot claim parity with co-workers who were granted ACP scale.
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 10/1327. Admittedly, the workman was employed as an Electric Motor Driver in the Engineering Department of North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) and was regularized by the management w.e.f. 01.04.1990 in pay scale of Rs. 775-1025 and that he filed an Industrial Dispute No. 19/2005 for wrong payment of pay scale which was raised to Rs. 950- 1500 vide Award dated 14.08.2006 which was implemented vide order dated 11.08.2011 Ex WW-1/1 and pay scale of workman was revised to Rs. 950-1500, effective from 01.04.1990.
28. The workman has proved office orders Ex. WW1/5(colly) to establish that similarly placed workmen who held the same position of Electric Motor Driver (EMD), were granted the pay scales of Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4500-7000 under the 1st and 2nd upgradation of the ACP scheme, respectively. Therefore, the argument of the management that the similarly situated workman, as claimed, were not performing the same nature of work and hence workman cannot claim parity is misconceived.
29. The office order dated 05.12.2006 of Sh. Shamsher Singh, EMD Ex.
WW1/5 (colly) shows that Sh. Shamsher was also regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1990 on the post of EMD and his pay scale was also fixed at Rs. 950-1500 and he was. granted 1st ACP as (Rs. 4000-100-6000), whereas the workman was given the 1st ACP as Rs. 3850+100+3950 vide office order dated 17.12.2015 Ex. WW1/3. This anomaly in the pay scales suggests that the up-gradation of ACP/MACP in accordance with the ACP Scheme for similarly situated workmen, were not applied to the claimant-workman, indicating a case of discriminatory practice.
30. Notably, the management has given the benefits of ACP but it has failed to grant the same on the basis of pay fixation of Rs. 950-1500 (Rs. 3050- POIT-292-2016 Page No. 11/13 4950). Meaning thereby, the management has failed to implement the Award in favor of workman in its true letter and spirit and gave wrong upgradation to him as per the previous pay scale.
31. The contention of management that ACP was granted cannot be accepted because if it is granted on the previous pay scale and thereafter, the pay scale is upgraded then ACP has to be granted on revised pay scale again and previous ACP granted on the previous pay scale cannot be accepted as correct. Resultingly, the second ACP will also be affected.
32. An Office order dated 04.06.2014 Ex MW-1/2 issued by the management cannot be relied upon by the management for dis-entitling the workman for the benefits in accordance with ACP scheme. It is because the management cannot issue office orders in contravention to the centrally sponsored ACP scheme which is the law of the land. Admittedly, workman was given pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 vide order dated 17.12.2015 Ex. WW-1/3, and this being the case, it will be naturally upgraded to pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000 in accordance with 1st ACP.
33. MW-1 Tarun Kumar in his cross-examination conducted by the Ld. AR for the workman has deposed that the post of Electric Motor Driver (EMD) is of technical nature and has also admitted the office order dated 03.04.2024 Ex. MW1/W1 whereby the benefit of 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and second ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 was granted to similarly situated workmen i.e. Electric Motor Driver.
34. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the workman has duly proved that the management has wrongly fixed his first upgradation ACP to Rs. 2750-4400 instead of Rs. 4000-6000. Therefore, it is held that the management has indulged in unfair labour practices as defined in Fifth POIT-292-2016 Page No. 12/13 Schedule at entry no. 9 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by showing favoritism or partiality to one set of workmen over the claimant- workman concerned regardless of any merit whatsoever. Therefore, workman is entitled for benefits of 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4000- 6000 w.e.f. 01.04.2002 and subsequently, 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 with all consequential benefits. Accordingly, terms of reference are decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Relief
35. In view of finding on the aforesaid issues, the workman is entitled to the benefit of 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs 4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.04.2002 and subsequently, 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 with all consequential benefits. The management is directed to implement the award within 60 days of its publication, failing which the management will be liable to pay interest @8% per annum from the date the amount became due i.e. 01.04.2002 till its realization.
36. Copy of award be sent to the appropriate government for publication.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Tribunal on 18.11.2025 Digitally signed Manjusha by Manjusha Wadhwa Wadhwa Date: 2025.11.18 16:08:26 +0530 (MANJUSHA WADHWA) Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-I/ Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi.
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 13/13