Delhi District Court
Sudesh Rani vs Sdmc on 28 March, 2026
POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHARAD GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
POIT No. 611/2018
CNR No. DLCT13-005410-2018
Smt. Sudesh Rani
W/o Sh. Hari Ram,
R/o R2/42,
Nowada Housing Complex,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi
Through
General Secretary,
Hospital Employees Union,
Agarwal Bhawan, G. T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi - 110054. ..... Workman
Versus
Management of South Delhi Municipal Corporation
through Its Commissioner (South),
Dr. S. P. Mukherjee Civic Centre,
J. L. Nehru Marg,
Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002. .... Management
Date of Institution 05.12.2018
Order reserved on 17.03.2026
Date of Award 28.03.2026
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28
17:00:56 +0530
Award 1 of 29
POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
AWARD
1.Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute vide Notification No. F.24/(374)/Lab/SD/2017-8482 dated 24.04.2018 for adjudication with following terms of the reference:
(1) Whether the demand of the workmen Smt. Manita & 35 Ors. (As per Annexure 'A') for regularization of their services on the post of ANMs with retrospective effect from their respective initial date of joining into the employment in the regular pay scale of Rs.5,200/- - 20,200/- (revised time to time) and with all consequential benefits monetary and non- monetary is legal and/or justified and if so, what relief they are entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect"?
2. Whether the demand of the workmen Smt. Manita & 35 Ors. (As per Annexure 'A') for entire difference of salary on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" from their initial date of joining onwards and all consequential benefits thereof is legal and justified; and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
Statement of Claim
2. It is a matter of record that although the reference was initially filed on behalf of 36 workmen, the claims of the workmen were separated and the present matter is only pending regarding the reference received in respect of the workman Sudesh Rani. In her claim, workman has stated that she was appointed as ANM (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) at M Digitally signed by & CW Center, Mahender Park, Prem Nagar, Uttam Nagar SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:01:14 +0530 Award 2 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
SDMC from 14.06.2000 on contract basis and was paid fixed wages revised from time to time as per the sweet will of the management, while her counter-parts doing the identical work and the work of same value but who were being treated as regular employees and were being paid salary in proper pay scale and allowance, but it was denied to the workman.
3. It is stated that a large number of posts of ANMs carrying the regular pay scale are lying vacant and the regular counter- parts of the workman are being paid their salary in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200/- and in order to circumvent the law, workman have been given one day break but in papers only.
4. It is stated that the workman fulfills the Recruitment Regulations (RRs) for the appointment on the post of ANM. It is stated that while appointing them as ANMs the posts were advertised in the newspaper and in response to the same workman also applied for the same. A Selection Board was constituted for selection of employees for the post of ANMs and after successfully clearing the interview and medical test, workman was duly appointed against vacant and sanctioned post of ANM.
5. It is stated that the workman has been working against the vacant sanctioned posts of ANM since her induction into the Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:01:22 +0530 Award 3 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
employment of the management, and she had undergone the rigorous employment procedure at the time of her initial appointment with the management.
6. It is submitted that the workman is continuously discharging her services with the management since the date mentioned above. She has an unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to her credit and there is no complaint against the workman regarding her work and conduct with the management. Although the workman is supposed to be regularized since her respective initial date of joining, but the management has not taken any steps to regularize her service.
7. It is submitted that the co-employees of the workman have raised an Industrial Dispute (I.D. No. 166/13) regarding regularization of their services. The said dispute decided by Ld. POIT, vide its award dated 05.05.2017, and the management was directed to regularize the services of the co- employees of the workman w.e.f. the dates of their first appointment with the management in the same pay scale of Rs. 5200-20,200/- with all benefits as the management indulged in unfair labor practice.
8. It is stated that the non-regularization of services of the workman aforesaid since her initial date of joining on the post Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:01:30 +0530 Award 4 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
of ANMs 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.
9. It is submitted that the job against which the workman aforesaid has been working is of a permanent and regular nature of job and many posts of ANMs are lying vacant with the management.
10.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 than 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 and the same was clearly held by the Supreme Court of India in the Matter of "Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. the Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and Ors " (2005)IILLJ 403SC vide judgment dated 27.03.2015, ONGC Itd Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Ors. (2015) IILJ 257 SC , vide judgment dated 17.04.2015. Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA SHARAD Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.28
17:01:44
+0530
Award 5 of 29
POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
11.It is stated that unfair treatment of the workman is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. That it amounts to sheer exploitation of labour.
12.It is submitted that the management has not framed any rules or regulations nor get it passed by the U.P.S.C. and nor notified in the official Gazette for governing the service conditions of the so-called muster roll/part-time seasonal workers/ contract workers, nor it has any certified Standing Orders governing service conditions of such workers and, therefore, the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are applicable to the workman and the management and its Undertakings.
13.Workman submitted that she has acquired the status of a permanent employee from initial date of her respective joining into the employment after completing 90 days of continuous employment as provided in the Model Standing Orders framed under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,1946. Even otherwise, workman has acquired the status of permanent employee from the initial date of her joining into employment after completing 240 days of continuous employment on regular basis as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Umrala Gram Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA SHARAD Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.28
17:01:52
+0530
Award 6 of 29
POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
Panchayat Vs. The Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and Ors".
14.Workman submitted that action of the management in employing the aforesaid workman as contractual or temporary and to continue her as such for years together with the object of depriving her of the status and privileges of permanent workman amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in Section 2 (ra) read with Item No.10 of the 5th Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
15.That the work and conduct of the workman aforesaid has been satisfactory and there has been no complaint against her work and the workman has been meted out with hostile discrimination as juniors to her have been regularized in service in proper pay scale and allowances since their initial dates of joining but the workman has been completely ignored in this matter.
16.It is stated that a demand notice was served upon the management by registered A.D. post vide communication dated 18.05.2017 & 24.05.2017, which was duly received in their office, but no reply has been received, and it is presumed that the demand has been rejected. Thereafter, Digitally conciliation proceedings were also initiated, but same resulted SHARAD signed by SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:01:59 +0530 Award 7 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
into failure due to adamant and non-co-operative attitude of the management.
17.It is prayed that an Award be passed in favour of workman regularizing her on the post of ANMs with retrospective effect from the respective initial date of joining into the employment in the regular pay scale of Rs.5200-20200/- revised time to time with all consequential benefits monetary and non-monetary and the workman be accordingly paid the entire difference of salary on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" for the initial date of joining and all consequential benefits thereof. Cost of litigation has also been prayed for.
Written Statement
18.In the written statement, it is stated that no demand notice has been served upon the management prior to raising of the present dispute and the claimant is a contractual worker and as such she is not covered under the definition of ' workman' as defined under Section 2(s) read with Section 2(oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
19.It is stated that the present case is bad in law and contrary to the rules and regulations as well as settled policy of the management. The workman was appointed as ANM on Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:02:07 +0530 Award 8 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
contract basis purely for a period of six months or till such time the post is filled up on regular basis by DSSSB whichever is earlier vide office order No.Pd/IPP-VIII/2000/1004 dated 27.06.2000 and the said appointment letter was duly accepted by the workman without any protest till date. 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 as well as the case titled as Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi. Other averments made in the statement of claim have been denied and dismissal of the claim has been prayed for.
Rejoinder
20.Rejoinder was filed by workman to the written statement of management wherein contents of claim were reiterated and reaffirmed and those of written statement were denied.
Issues
21.On 29.05.2019, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1) Whether the claimant is covered under the definition of workmen as per section 2 (s) of industrial Disputes Act, being the contractual workman? OPW
2) As per terms of reference.
3) Relief Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:2026.03.28
17:02:18 +0530
Award 9 of 29
POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
Workman's Evidence
22.In order to prove her entitlement, workman examined herself as WW1 and tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.WW1/A. She deposed on the lines of her claim and relied upon documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/44.
Management's Evidence
23.Management examined MW1 Jaisingh Meena who tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.MW1/A. He proved copy of an offer letter as Ex. MW1/1. He relied upon documents Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2.
24.It is argued on behalf of workman that the workman was appointed after going through an open selection process conducted by duly constituted Selection Board and she fulfills the criteria of recruitment rules. It is stated that workman has been working against sanctioned vacant post and her conduct has always remained satisfactory. It is submitted that in view of law laid down in Chief Conservative of Forest and Anr., (1996) 2 SCC 293, Project Director Dep. Of Rural Development Vs. Workman, 2019 SCC Online Delhi 7996 and Govt. Of NCT of Delhi Vs. Nisha & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 15950/2023, Management is bound to regularize the services of workman w.e.f. date of her initial joining the service. Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.28
17:02:25
+0530
Award 10 of 29
POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
25.Ld. AR for the management has argued that no demand notice has been served upon the management prior to raising of the present dispute and the workman is a contractual worker and as such she is not covered under the definition of ' workman' as defined under Section 2(s) read with Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is argued that the present case is contrary to the rules and regulations as well as settled policy of the management. The workman was appointed as ANM on contract basis purely for a period of six months or till such time the post is filled up on regular basis by DSSSB whichever is earlier. It is also argued that the workman was merely working as casual labour and as such in view of the law laid down in "MCD Vs. Gauri Shankar & Ors. JT 2004 (6) SC 126 and MCD vs Its Workmen," services of the workman cannot be regularized.
26.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 claimant is covered under the definition of workmen as per section 2 (s) of industrial Disputes Act, being the contractual workman? OPW
27.Vide Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, definition Digitally signed of 'workman' is as follows:
by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:02:33 +0530 Award 11 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
"Workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Army Act, 1950, or the Navy Act, 1957; or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."
28. It is not in dispute that workman has been working on the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) with the management. There is no assertion whatsoever on the part of the management that workman is working in any managerial or administrative capacity with the management, or even that she is working in any supervisory capacity with the management at the time of raising of industrial dispute.
29. Furthermore, in the facts of the present case, it is not disputed that the workman joined the service of management Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:02:40 +0530 Award 12 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
no.1 w.e.f. l4.06.2000 and her contracts were renewed from time to time every six months. It is also not disputed that the workman is still working with the management. The same suggests that the post of ANM is of perennial nature. Furthermore, although contention of management is that one day break was given to the workman after completion of six months of service, MW-1 admitted that the object of giving one day break in service was to ensure that the workman may not have continuous service to his credit. It is well settled having been held in Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Vs. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union 2024 INSC 199 that workers who are engaged in performance of work which is perennial or permanent in nature cannot be classified as contractual workers. Furthermore, it has been held in MCD Vs. Sandeep Yadav 2024 DHC 4704 that even contractual workers cannot be kept out of the definition of workman as defined in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Workman is accordingly held to be ' workman' under the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended up to date). Accordingly, issue is decided accordingly in her favor. Issue No.2: As per terms of reference?
30.It is also argued on behalf of the management that no demand notice was served by the workman prior to raising the present dispute.
Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA SHARAD Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.28
17:02:47
+0530
Award 13 of 29
POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
31.In this context, in his affidavit of evidence, workman deposed that a demand notice Ex. WW1/1 dated 18.05.2017 and Ex.WW1/3 dated 24.05.2017 were sent to the Management by the Union through postal receipt as Ex. WW1/2. It establishes that demand notices were duly sent at the address of the management. None the less, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P (C) No. 13023/2005 titled "Workmen of MCD vs. MCD", has observed that serving of demand notice is not sine-qua-non for raising an industrial dispute. Further more, MW-1 in his cross-examination stated that demand notice Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/3 bear the correct address of the management. Thus, in the facts of the present case, it is observed that the workman has been able to establish that legal demand notices were duly sent to the management.
32.It is admitted by the Management that the working hours of the workman and her permanent counterparts in regular pay- scale are same and identical. It is further admitted that the workman is working along with regular and permanent ANM. It is further admitted by the Management that if work and conduct of the workman is not found satisfactory in past six months, the services of such workman would be discontinued by the management whereas there is no such condition for regular and permanent ANM. It is also admitted by MW-1 Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:02:55 +0530 Award 14 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
that the management had advertised the post of ANM in newspapers for recruitment to which the concerned workman and others had applied for. That the management constituted a Selection Committee which interviewed the applicants, verified their qualifications and appointed the workmen who were found suitable. Thus, it has come on record that the applicant was appointed through a selection process. MW-1 further admitted that the workman fulfilled the requisite qualifications for the post of ANM. He also admitted that the work and conduct of the workman was satisfactory and there was no complaints against her.
33.There is no dispute about the fact that the workman has been discharging the duties of ANM from her initial date of joining and till date. MW-1 admitted that the workman is working against vacant posts of ANM from initial date of joining till date. Although MW-1 asserted that one day break was given after completion of six months of service to the workman, he admitted that the object of giving the one day break was to ensure that the workman may not have continuous service to her credit. Thus, the one day break was given artificially by the management and rather the workman has been working with the management from date of her initial joining till date. It has also come on record that the management has more than 250 permanent sanctioned posts of ANM in its Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:03:03 +0530 Award 15 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
establishment, which suggests that the work of ANM is permanent and perennial in nature. MW-1 admitted that about 144 posts were kept vacant as various litigations of ANMs are pending in the Court and if they succeed then can be accommodated against the said posts. Thus, the record would show that vacant posts of ANM are lying vacant with the management. Even though the workman was stated to be engaged on contract basis, 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. 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 possess all essential qualifications for the post, and satisfy the age stipulations, and Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:03:11 +0530 Award 16 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
(v) they are directly employed under the MCD and are under their supervision.
35.In the present case also the following facts emerge:
a) Workman has rendered continuous and uninterrupted service for almost 25 years.
b) Workman is performing the permanent and perennial nature of work as a ANM.
c) At the time when workman was appointed, there were vacant posts of ANM available with the management and she was working against vacant post of ANM from her initial date of joining.
d) There is nothing on record to indicate that the workman does not fulfill qualifications for the job.
e) During the course of the employment, the services of workman were found to be satisfactory and there was no complaint against her.
f) The management admitted that the work, duties, and number of working hours of the workman are identical to those of the regular and permanent employees of management.
36.Management has contended that the workman have to undergo the appropriate employment procedure through DSSSB for seeking regularization as per settled law and Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.28 17:03:19 +0530 Award 17 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
Recruitment Rules. However, MW-1 as already observed admitted that the workman fulfilled the requisite qualifications for the post of ANM. Furthermore, the management failed to bring on record any policy specifically pertaining to regularization of ANM. The management also failed to bring on record the Recruitment Rules of the post of ANM to suggest that regular and permanent ANM can only be appointed through DSSSB. The management also failed to bring to the notice of this Tribunal any law under which ANMs can only be regularized or appointed on regular posts through DSSSB. These arguments of the management are thus liable to be rejected.
37. Even otherwise, this Tribunal emphasizes that 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.
38.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 Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:03:27 +0530 Award 18 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
prohibited under Section 25T but also punishable under Section 25U of Industrial Disputes Act.
39.Industrial Tribunals have a duty to examine the reasons/ justification recorded by the management for appointing workers on a temporary basis and assess these reasons in accordance with the Industrial Dispute Act. Engaging workers for permanent and perennial work and treating them as casual/muster roll/contract/daily wager/temporary workers without recorded reasons will act against the management and suggest an element of unfair labor practice, as it exploits the services of workers without providing them their due wages, and no justifiable reasons have been recorded by management.
40.The 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 workman on a daily-wages basis in the year 2000, especially when the work of a ANM is permanent and perennial in nature, and the workman was appointed against a sanctioned vacant post from the very beginning.
41.Management has also argued that the workman has duly accepted her appointment out of her free will with all the Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:03:35 +0530 Award 19 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
terms and conditions without any protest, therefore, at this stage she cannot retract from her acceptance and claim regularization w.e.f. her initial date of joining. This tribunal does not find any consensus with this argument of the management. Merely because the workman has "consented"
to her appointment on the post of ANM, that does not give the license to the management to indulge in unfair labour practices. Given that the workman is a lowly paid employee and considering his socio-economic background, it is unreasonable to assume that she possesses equal bargaining power in determining the terms of her appointment, including decisions related to her regularization. Reliance placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC
156. This is specially more so as MW1 categorically admitted that in case the workman did not furnish the contract agreement Ex.MW1/2, she would not have been given further extension.
42.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- Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.28 17:03:44 +0530 Award 20 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
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 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.
43.In view of the admitted position and the material on record, this Tribunal holds that the management has clearly committed an unfair labour practice as enumerated in Item No. 10 of the Fifth Schedule read with Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act by employing the workman against the sanctioned vacant post of ANM but treating her merely as a contractual employee for performing the permanent nature of work of a ANM and continued her for years with the intent of depriving her of the status and privileges of a regular and Digitally signed permanent employee. SHARAD by SHARAD GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2026.03.28 17:03:55 +0530 Award 21 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
44.Moreover, Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 720/2024 titled as "Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Pradeep Rana & Ors." rejected the contention of the management that regularizing the workmen would lead to seniority disputes, financial burden, and was against the principles laid down in the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, Appeal (Civil) 3595-3612 of 1999, decided on 10.04.2006, relied upon by the management in the present matter.
45.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 Digitally signed by SHARAD the MCD seeks to canvas in these petitions, SHARAD GUPTA GUPTADate:
2026.03.28 17:04:01 +0530 Award 22 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
would not only weaponize, but would in fact demonize, Uma Devi.
46.In above noted authoritative decision, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that the employees who satisfy the 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 regularization, 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 regularize the services of the workman concerned is misplaced in law.
47.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 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.
48.In "Jaggo Vs Union of India & Others, SLP (C ) 5580/2024,"
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:04:09 +0530 Award 23 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
49. Recently, in Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr . in Civil Appeal no. 8558 of 2018, vide judgment dated 19.08.2005 the Hon'ble Apex Court regularized the services of the workmen and has categorically held that :
"18.Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad- hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA SHARAD keep public offices running." GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:04:25 +0530 Award 24 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
50.Workman gave sustained contribution to the management for decades altogether. There is no adverse remark against her. In view of undisputed service of the workman and the perennial nature of duty coupled with vacancies of ANMs, the fact that as per record, she fulfilled the requisite qualifications for the post of ANM the service of the workman is entitled to be regularized on the post of ANM from the date of her initial appointment w.e.f. 14.06.2000.
51.As far as the question of consequential benefits is concerned, since the workman is performing the same work as being performed by her regular counterparts and there was no change in her work, working hours, roles, and responsibilities vis a vis her regular counter-parts, as such, it is held that workman is entitled to the consequential benefits.
52.So far as the demand of workman for difference of salary on principle of equal pay for equal work is concerned, reference can be made to the settled proposition of law on this aspect.
53.In Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637, it was held as follows:-
2.These writ petitions have been initiated on the basis of two letters, one addressed by Dhirendra Chamoli and the other by Mohan Singh both of whom are employees of Nehru Yuvak Kendra, Dehradun. The Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.28 17:04:33 +0530 Award 25 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
complaint made in the writ petitions is that there are a number of persons who are engaged by Nehru Yuvak Kendra as casual workers on daily wage basis and though they are doing the same work as is performed by Class IV employees appointed on regular basis, they are not being given the same salary and allowances as are being paid to Class IV employees. Since Nehru Yuvak Kendras have been started by the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India, we issued notice to the Central Government to show cause why the employees of the Nehru Yuvak Kendras performing the same duties as Class IV employees should not be paid the same salary and allowances. The under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Sports has filed a counter affidavit in which it is alleged that the Nehru Yuvak Kendras have been started at different places in the country as temporary organisations and they have not yet been made permanent, with the result that there are no sanctioned posts of Class IV employees and the employees who are engaged by different Nehru Yuvak Kendras are taken as casual employees on daily wage basis. The argument envisaged in the counter affidavit is that since there are no sanctioned posts to which regular appointments can be made, the casual employees employed by different Nehru Yuvak Kendras cannot claim to receive the same salary and perquisites as Class IV employees appointed regularly to sanctioned posts. But while raising this argument, it is conceded in the counter affidavit that "the persons engaged by the Nehru Yuvak Kendras perform the same duties as is performed by Class IV employees appointed on regular basis against sanctioned posts. If that be so, it is difficult to understand how the Central Government can deny to these employees the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees regularly appointed against sanctioned posts. It is peculiar on the part of the Central Government to urge that these persons took up Digitally signed by SHARAD employment with the Nehru Yuvak Kendras knowing fully well that SHARAD GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.28
17:04:42
+0530
Award 26 of 29
POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
they will be paid only daily wages and therefore they cannot claim more. This argument lies ill in the mouth of the Central Government for it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and a Welfare State committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument. It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This Article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, must therefore get the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees. It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they are performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees.
54.Similarly, the ratio in "MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & Others W.P. (C ) No.7947/2010" can be adverted to on the aspect where the similar relief was awarded to the workman therein, by the Central Administrative Tribunal and writ petition filed against the order was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court. Hence, the Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:04:50 +0530 Award 27 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
workman is found entitled to the difference of salary on principle of equal pay for equal work w.e.f. her initial date of joining onwards.
55.In view of above discussions, it is held that the workman is entitled to regularization in service on the post of ANM w.e.f. 14.06.2000 along with payment of entire difference of salary on the "Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work" with all consequential benefits. Hence, the terms of reference/ the issue no. 2 is answered in favor of the workman and against the management.
Relief
56. In view of the above findings, it is held that the workman Smt. Sudesh Rani W/o Sh. Hari Ram is entitled to regularization in service on the post of ANM w.e.f. 14.06.2000 along with payment of entire difference of salary on the "Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work" with all consequential benefits.
57.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. 24.04.2018 till its realization. The Digitally signed award is passed accordingly. SHARAD by SHARAD GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2026.03.28 17:05:02 +0530 Award 28 of 29 POIT No: 611/2018 "Sudesh Rani Vs SDMC"
58.Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
59. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in the open court Digitally signed on 28th March, 2026. by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.28 17:05:09 +0530 ( SHARAD GUPTA ) Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-II, Rouse Avenue District Court New Delhi Award 29 of 29