Delhi District Court
India Ltd, Hosur And Another vs Poit, Tamilnadu, on 27 April, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH BABU LAL: POIT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
I.D. 54/08
The workmen
Workmen represented by Mata Chanan Devi Hospital
Karamchari Union, C-1, Janakpuri, New Delhi 58.
Versus
The management
M/s Mata Chanan Devi Hospital,
C-1 Janakpuri, New Delhi 58.
Date of institution 22.04.08
Arguments heard on 17.04.10
Date of award 27.04.10
AWARD
1. Workmen of Mata Chanan Devi Hospital through
their union have raised present dispute and on failure of
conciliation proceedings, appropriate Government
referred the dispute to ther tribunal in following terms of
reference :-
1. '' Whether the workmen are entitled to claim
pay and leave related benefits, including the
benefit of time bound promotion and/ or leave
travel concession, conveyance allowance at part
with employees of the Central Government and
2
Union Territories in accordance with the
recommendations of the fifth Central Pay
Commission and also whether the workmen are
entitled to free medicine and injenctions etc ?''
2. '' Whether the workmen are entitled to be
provided lockers, rest room and uniform
changing rooms at their work place ?''
3. In the statement of claim, it is alleged that Mata
Chanan Devi Hospital Karamchari Union is the only trade
union of the workmen operating in Management and Sh.
Ravinder Kumar, being General Secretary of the Union, is
competent to file present claim. Union of the workmen
allegedly held a general body meeting on 16.11.05 and
served a charter of demand on the Management vide
letter dated 28.11.05. Management allegedly refused to
consider demands of workmen and thus the present
dispute has been raised. It is claimed that workmen of
Management may be paid wages as per V Pay
Commission and as per scales prevalent in Government
Hospitals in Delhi or alternatively on the principle of
industry cum region norms and financial capacity of the
Management. It is allegedly claimed that free medical
facilities including cost of medicines may also be given to
workmen and their family members. It is also claimed
that facility of LTC 3 times a year may be also extended to
workmen and their family members. Conveyance
allowance at par with Central Govt. Employees has also
3
been claimed. It is also alleged that facilities of rest room,
changing room and lockers may also be extended to them.
It is alleged that demands of the workmen are justified
inasmuch as Management is in a good financial
condition.
4. In the WS, preliminary objection has been taken
that cause of the workmen has not been duly espoused.
On merits, case of the Management is that workmen can
not be given wages as prevalent in Government Hospitals.
It is alleged that workmen are being provided more than
wages fixed by Delhi Government under Minimum Wages
Act and none of the demands is based on principle of ''
Industry-cum-Region Basis''. As regards grant of same
pay structure in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and other big
private hospital is concerned, it is alleged that elite class
including VVIPs visit those hospitals and Management
can not be compared with those hospitals. It is alleged
that Management hospital is a charitable hospital and it is
not making profits, hence, demands raised by the
workmen are not justified. As regards medical facilities, it
is alleged that same is already being extended to workmen
free of cost including free medicines, hence, same is
misconceived. As regards LTC is concerned, demand of
providing LTC 3 times a year is unjustified and can not be
met, moreover, there has not been any such service
4
condition. As regards conveyance allowance, it is alleged
that wages being provided to workmen are inclusive of all
allowances including conveyance allowance, hence, it is
also misconceived. As regards facilities of rest room,
changing rooms and lockers, it is alleged that there is a
provision for changing clothes and no extra expenditure
can be incurred by the Hospital of the Management. It is
alleged that none of the demands of the workmen is legal
or justified and thus they are not entitled for any relief.
5. In the rejoinder, workmen has reiterated and
reaffirmed all the facts as alleged in statement of claim
and denied all the facts as set out in the WS.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following
issues were framed:-
1. Whether cause of the workmen has been duly
espoused?
2. As per terms of reference.
7. In order to prove their case, workmen have
examined as many as six witnesses, namely, WW--1
Ravinder Kumar, WW--2 Sh. Binay Kumar Khota, WW--3
Gopal Nath, WW--4 Ms Anju Shukla, WW--4 John Masih (
wrongly written as it should have been WW--5), WW--5
Sh. Mangal Singh and WW--6 Sh. Sushil Kumar. On the
other hand, Management has examined two witnesses,
namely, MW--1 Sh. R.N. Rai and MW--2 Sh. R. Venkita
5
Chalam.
8. I have heard AR for the parties and have carefully
gone through the record of the case. My issuewise
findings are as under :-
9. Findings on issue No 1:-
Issue No 1 is whether the cause of the workmen
has been duly espoused. In WS case of the Management
is that cause has not been espoused by the Union or by
majority of the workmen, hence, same is bad. On the
other hand, case of the workmen is that Union
representing the workmen had duly espoused the cause.
10. MW--1 Sh. R.N. Rai in his affidavit has deposed
that purported resolution filed on record contains similar
signatures almost of all the workmen employed by the
Management, therefore, resolution can not be acted
upon. It is also deposed that membership of signatories
to resolution has not been proved, hence, resolution is not
valid. On the other hand, WW--1 Ravinder Kumar in his
affidavit has deposed that in a general body meeting held
on 16.11.05, it was resolved to raise certain demands
before Management. Copy of minutes of meeting held on
16.11.05 have been proved as Ex WW1/2.
11. No argument has been advanced on this issue by
either party.
12. I have perused minutes of meeting Ex WW1/2. It
6
is signed by as many as 155 workmen wherein it was
decided to submit a charter of demands to the
Management. I have not observed prima facie any
similarity in signatures of the workmen. Therefore, plea
of the Management that all signatures are similar is not
tenable. Espousal dated 17.12.05 is also placed on record
and is Ex WW1/2 which is signed by Executive Committee
of the Union of 10 members wherein it was resolved to
raise an industrial dispute concerning demands of the
workmen. Therefore, I hold that there is proper espousal
of present industrial dispute. This issue is accordingly
decided in favour of workmen and against the
Management.
13. Findings on issue No 2
Issue No 2 is as per terms of reference. Terms of
reference are whether the workmen are entitled to claim
pay and leave related benefits, including the benefit of
time bound promotion and/ or leave travel concession,
conveyance allowance at part with employees of the
Central Government and Union Territories in accordance
with the recommendations of the fifth Central Pay
Commission and also whether the workmen are entitled
to free medicine and injenctions etc and whether the
workmen are entitled to be provided lockers, rest room
and uniform changing rooms at their work place.
7
Demand of wages/pay scales
14. WW--1 Ravinder Kumar in his affidavit has
deposed that Management is in operation since 1985 and
presently having 210 bed and is largest and prestigious
hospital in west Delhi. It is deposed that another building
to accommodate 150 beds has also been constructed and
is likely to start operation any time. It is deposed that
Management caters to elite sections of Janakpuri, vikas
puri, Tilak Nagar, Dwarka, hari Nagar and other
surrounding areas, it has all super speciality procedures
like open heart surgery, by pass surgery, Neuro surgery,
spinal surgery, Nefrology department, 10 dialysis
machines, a large blood blanks. It is deposed that it is
charging more than sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Escorts,
Hospital, Appolo and other prestigious private/ charitable
hospitals. It is deposed that hospitals like Sir Ganga Ram,
Mool Chand, Tirath Ram Hospital are making payment to
their employees more than 5th and 6th Pay Commision. It
is deposed that other hospitals like St. Stephan's Hospital,
Escorts Hospital and Medical Research Centre are paying
to their workmen at or around pay scales prescribed by
Central Government. It is deposed that financial position
of the Management is also sound enough to extend
benefits to the workmen. It is also deposed that
Management has been earning huge profits. It is deposed
8
that demand of the workmen is fully justified on region-
cum-industry basis.
15. WW--3 Sh. Gopal nath from Appolo Hospital has
deposed that his hospital is paying Rs. 7000-8000 to class
IV staff. According to him, starting salary of staff nurs ie
Rs. 6600. WW--4 Ms Anju Shukla from Tirath Ram Shah
Hospital has deposed that Management has implemented
recommendations of 6th Pay Commission. Scales of
various staff members have been proved as Ex WW4/1.
WW--4 John Masih from St. Stephan Hospital has
deposed that recommendations of Pay Commission are
not applicable to their hospital because it is a private
organization. He has proved details of pay and allowances
of different categories of employees as Ex WW4/1 which
are starting salary of the scale. WW--5 Sh. Mangal Singh
is from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. According to him,
recommendations of 6th Pay Commission have been
implemented by his hospital. He has proved pay slip as
Ex WW5/1 and WW5/2. WW--6 is Sh. Sushil Kumar who
is from Holy Family Hospital. He has proved details of
pay and allowances being paid to various categories of
employees working in the hospital as Ex WW6/2.
16. On the other hand, MW--1 Sh. R.N. Rai in his
affidavit has deposed that Management is a charitable
hospital run by a trust. It is deposed that
9
recommendations of Pay Commissions are not applicable
to it. It is deposed that workmen are being paid more
than wages fixed by Delhi Government under Minimum
Wages Act. It is deposed that none of demands of
workmen is based on Industry cum region basis. It is
deposed that Management can not be compared with well
established hospitals like Sir Ganga Ram, Apollo Hospital
etc and VVIPs take treatement from those hospitals and
that they are making huge profits.
17. It is argued by AR for the workmen that
Management has been running for last more than 25
years and has been making huge profits. It is argued that
Mool Chand Hospital, Tirath Ram and Ganga Ram
hospital go by Government rules and pay salaries to their
workmen as per Government pay scales. It is argued that
other hospitals give much salaries to their workmen than
Management do. It is argued that Management is in a
fanancial condition to afford burden of V Pay
Commission.
18. On the other hand, AR for the management has
argued that reference in the present case is 'whether
workmen are entitled to be paid wages and other facilities
as per recommendations of V Pay Commission'. It is
argued that no evidence or notification has been placed
on record which provides applicability of V Pay
10
Commission on private hospitals, therefore, they are not
entitled for pay as per V Pay Commission. It is argued
that Management has been running in loss, therefore, it is
not in a financial capacity to bear burden of demands
raised on behalf of the workmen. It is argued that
demands of the workmen are not legal and justified.
19. It has been acceded by AR for the workman that
there is no law/ rule/ notification of Government which
mandates that private hospitals including the
Management should implement the recommendations of
Central Pay Commission.
20. However, it has been argued by AR for the
workmen that on the basis of region-cum-industry
criterion, the Management is in a position to pay scales as
per V Pay Commission to its employees. On the other
hand, AR for the management has argued that
Management is running in huge losses, therefore, it is not
in a position to pay as per V Pay Commission. Secondly,
pay structures of employees of the Management is more
than Minimum Wages declared by Govt of NCT of Delhi
and is comparable with Pay Structures of other private
hospitals.
21. AR for the workmen has relied upon authorities
reported as Express Newspapers Ltd and another vs
Union of India AIR 1958 SC 578 and Management of Bata
11
India Ltd, Hosur and another vs POIT, Tamilnadu,
Chennai 2010 II LLJ 175 ( Mad).
22. In Remington Rand of India vs The workmen
1972 Lb. It is correct that 632 ( SC), it has been held:-
'' The foundation of the principle of industry-
cum-region is that, as far as possible, there
should be uniformity of conditions of service in
comparable concerns in the industry in a
region, so that there is no imbalance in the
conditions of service between workmen in one
establishment and those in the rest. The
danger otherwise, would be migration of
labour to the one where there are more
favourable conditions, from those where
conditions are less favourable. Therefore, the
mere fact that a particular concern can bear an
additional liability would, by itself, be no
ground to impose upon it, such extra
obligation''.
20. In workmen of Jessop & Co. Ltd vs Jessop & Co.
Ltd ( 1964) 1 LLJ 451, it was pointed by out Hon'ble
Supreme Court that one of the reasons behind the
principle of region-cum-industry is that concerns of more
or less the same standing, in the same industry, should
have, as nearly as possible, the same wages, so that they
might stand at par with one another in the matter of
competition. Otherwise, if different rates of wages are
fixed in a particular concern, which are much higher than
the prevailing rates of wages in concerns of similar
standing in the same industry, it will be put to a
disadvantage position when it comes to compete in the
12
market for the sale of its product. It is for this reason,
when scales of pay are being fixed, the tribunals look at
what are called comparable concerns, in framing the wage
structure.
21. Coming to onus of proof in this regard, it is duty
of the petitioners, who have raised the demand, to allege
and prove as to what are comparable pay structures in
various industries engaged in similar business and what is
financial capacity of the respondent Management to meet
demands so that comparative evaluation could be made that demands put up by the Union or workmen are just, fair and reasonable and in order to keep business harmony in the industry, they are to be accepted keeping in view profits earning capacity of a particular concern. So far as pay structure of similar concerns engaged in analogous business is concerned, workmen have not led any evidence as to pay structure of various categories of employees particularly in respect of head of demands of claimants in this case. I may mention that hospitald likr Holy Family, St. Stephan's, Apollo, Sir Ganga Ram and Tirath Ram Shah are highly reputed hospitals of Delhi and Management is not as much reputed as above hospitals are.
22. The second requirement for appreciating demands of the workmen is that Management should 13 have been earning enormous profits. It is the right of the workmen as a collective force to share profits earned by industry because they are producer of the profits. But for that purpose they have to prove as to what is the financial capacity of the concern they are engaged in. In the present case, workmen have not placed on record any evidence or document as to what is quantum of gross annual turn over of the Management and what is quantum of profits made by it so that this tribunal could have come to a definite conclusion that the Management was earning profits and it was capable to bear the burden of demands raised by the workmen. Management has filed on record analysis of Income and Expenditure commencing from 2005-06 to 2008-09 which is as follows;
Year Gross Total Total Loss/Saving( L
Income Expenditures for loss)
2005-06 28,22,33,216 34,16,26,111 5,94,02,895 ( L)
2006-07 30,56,67,338 35, 24,08,117 4,67,40,779 ( L)
2007-08 31,40,40,843 34,09,56,400 2,69,15,557 ( L)
2008-09 ( 37, 73,94,046 37,78,96,537 5,02,451 ( L)
unaudited/provis
ional
23. Since workmen have not produced any evidence on the financial position of the Management, this Tribunal has no option but to rely on the evidence 14 produced by Management regarding its financial position. In view of this position as depicted in the table, it can not be said that Management has been making profits, therefore, on this ground also, demands of the workmen can not be said to be just and proper.
24. It has been argued by AR for the workmen that Management has shown cost of depriciation on higher level so as to depict that it has been suffering losses. On the other hand, it has been argued by AR for the management that to keep the hospital as a going concern, periodical replacement of medical equipments is must, therefore, cost of depriciation will have to be taken into account.
25. No details of medical machines, their cost and depriciation cost has been given by the Union so that this Tribunal could have opportunity to assess the cost of depriciation as depicted by the Management as on higher side. In the absence of such evidence from the side of workmen, only evidence on the basis of which a decision is required to be taken be taken is evidence produced by the Management. It is true that medical machines are costly. It is also true that if hospital has to keep pace in the competitive medical market, it needs to keep its machines update which require periodical replacement of machines and keeping pace with innovation in the field of 15 medicines and surgery and equipments. It is admitted fact that medical machines are quite costly and their periodical replacement is must. Therefore, in the absence of any facts brought on record by the Union, the position explained by the Management in any manner can not said to be unjustified.
26. It is not case of the workmen that they are being paid less than Minimum Wages. Payment of Minimum Wages is a rule. However, if workmen claim higher wages and other facilities as demanded by them in this case, they have to allege and prove facts having bearing on higher pay structure on the basis of criterion based on region-cum-industry. In the present case, workmen have relied upon following chart :-
Sl Designation Holy Escorts St. Tirath Apollo Sir No Family Heart Stephan Ram Hospital Ganga Ram Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Descriptio Descripti Descripti Descripti Descripti Scale n on on on on Descripti on Ward Nurse 12,780/- 6th Pay Commissi on implemen 1 23876 ted Staff Nurse 10,000- 11,727/- 16,145/- 16,093/- 6600/- 2 300-19,000 Tel. Operator- 6000-200- 10,858/- 10,900/-
Receptionist 14000/-
Midwife, All
types of
technician,
3 Receptionist 9576
Driver, 6000-150- 7000-
Plumber, 12000 8000
Mason, cook,
Nurse
4 Aide,DPN 9985 8691
16
Sl Designation Holy Escorts St. Tirath Apollo Sir
No Family Heart Stephan Ram Hospital Ganga
Ram
Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale
Descriptio Descripti Descripti Descripti Descripti Scale
n on on on on Descripti
on
Mali, Asstt. 4,500-150- 7000-
ECG 12,000 8000
Tech/Aide,
O.R.Asstt, AC
Mechanic,
5 Liftman etc 9330 8691
Sr Nurse 4,500-150-
Aide/orderlies, 12,000
6 Sr Bearer etc 9330 8691
All Aides, 4,500-150-
Kitchen Bearer, 12,000
Sr Chowkidars,
Sweeper, Diet
Aide-cum-
7 Dishwasher 8281 8123 7440
Chowkidar, 4,500-150-
Sweeper, 12,000
helper,
Dishwasher,
8 Bottle washer 7446 8123 7440
27. WW--2 to WW--6 have also deposed to the same effect as reflected in above table. Workmen have not led any evidence as to financial capacity of abovesaid hospitals so that it could be ascertained that in spite of losses incurred by them, they have been paying above salaries to their employees. When no evidence as to financial capacity of abovesaid hospitals has been led and secondly, Management in the present case has been continuously incurring losses, demands of the workmen for wages as per V Pay Commission can not be said to be justified. Moreover, as per reference in the present case, workmen have claimed wages at par with employees of 17 the Central Government and Union Territories in accordance with recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission. But no evidence, no notification in this has been produced or shown to this Tribunal that recommendations of Pay Commission are also binding on private/ charitable hospitals. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that first of all demands of workmen are not just and legal keeping in view financial condition of the Management. Secondly, when no evidence has been led as to applicability of recommendations of Central Pay Commision in private hospitals, they can not be ordered to be paid as per recommendations of V Pay Commission.
I, therefore, hold that demands of workmen for wages as being paid to Central Government and Union Territories Employees as per recommendations of Pay Commission is not just and proper. This part of reference is accordingly decided against the workmen and in favour of Management.
28. Demands relating to leaves, LTC, conveyance allowance, Medical facilities & time bound promotion.
WW--1 Sh. Ravinder Kumar in his affidavit has deposed that medical benefits including cost of medicines to workmen and their family members are available to employees in all other hospitals. It is deposed that Management charges cost of medicines from its 18 employees. Copy of a letter in this regard has been proved as Ex WW1/6. It is deposed that conveyance allowance not less than Rs. 500 is being provided to workmen by all major and medium sized hospitals in Delhi. It is deposed that LTC facilities be provided to all workmen and their family members every two years for home visits. It is deposed that Hospitals like Escorts are providing such facilities to unmarried staff members every year. WW--3 Gopal nath from Appolo Hospital has deposed that they provide medi claim facilities to their employees and except medi claim facility, separate medical facility is not provided. It is deposed that they also provide 21 days EL, 12 CL, 12 sick leaves in a year. They also give 7 RH and all national hoslidays. It is deposed that promotion policy is based on performance and not on seniority basis. WW--4 Ms Anju Shukla in her testimony has deposed that medical facility to family members of employee is also being provided. Details of leave and LTC entitlement are being provided as per Ex WW4/1 to WW4/5. WW--4 John Masih in his affidavit has deposed that they give 30 days EL, 10 CL and 10 sick leaves to a permanent staff in a year. It is depoed that they also provide 3 national holidays and several festival holidays. It is deposed that they provide free medical facilities to employee, wife and his children below 25 years and depedent parens. It is deposed that 19 promotion is baded on merit only and seniority is not a consideration therefor. WW--5 Sh. Mangal Singh in his deposition has deposed that they provide 30 EL, 12 CL, 10 Sick leave per year. He is deposed to be getting medical facility for himself as well as for his family members. It is deposed that an employee is given promotion after 8 years. WW--6 Sh. Sushil Kumar has also deposed that free medical facility to family members is given by his hospital but to depedent other than family members the limit is Rs. 10,000/- per year.
29. MW--1 Sh. R.N. Rai in his affidavit has deposed that medical facilities is being given to workmen and his family members including cost of medicines. It is deposed that demand of LTC facilities three times in every four years for workmen and his family members is misconceived. Moreover, there has not been such condition of service to provide such a facility to an employee. It is deposed that conveyance allowance is included in the wages being paid to the workmen.
30. It has been argued that by AR for the workmen that since other similar hospitals are providing these facilities, Management should also provide the same to its employees. On the other hand, it is argued that Management cannot be compared with those highly reputed hospital. It is argued that since Management has 20 been running in loss, it is not in a financial conditions to meet demand of the workmen.
31. As regards medical facilities to the workmen is concerned, each and every hospital is providing medical facilities to its employees including to their family members. Therefore, workmen, their wives, their children and depedents ( restricted to mother and father) are also entitled to free medical facilities because after all they have been serving the Management and it is for it to take care of its employees. Even otherwise, MW--1 Sh. R.N. Rai in his affidavit has deposed that medical facilities is being given to workmen and their family members including cost of medicines. No suggestion has been put to this witness on behalf of the workmen denying that Management has been providing medical facilities free of cost to its employees. Therefore, it stands proved that Management has been providing the medical facilities to its workers and their dependant family members.
32. So far as entitlement of the workmen for leaves is concerned, I have perused the evidence on record. Almost each and every hospital is providing EL for 30 days whereas Management is providing only 15 days EL. Only one hospital i.e. Indraprastha Apollo is giving 21 days EL to its employees. It is clear that every hospital has been providing EL more than 20 days. It is not case of the 21 workmen that any Ceritified Standings Orders of the Management exist nor such Standing orders have been placed on record. In the absence of any Certified Standing Orders, this Tribunal will have to look into the The Model Standing Orders for the purpose of ascertaining entitlement of the workmen to leaves. As per rule 10(b) of Model Standing Orders, workmen shall be entitled to leave with wages in accordance with provisions contained in Mines Act, 1952. According to section 52 of the Mines Act, workman earns one day leave with wage for every twenty days of work performed by him. If so calculated, a workman shall be entitled to approximately 18 days leave with wages. As per evidence on record, Management has been providing EL of 15 days to its employees. But as per provisions of Model Standing Orders, I hold that workmen are also entitled to 18 days E.L. in a year.
33. As regards casual leave. Rule 10 (f) of Model Standing Orders, a workman may be granted casual leave of absence with pay not exceeding five days in a calender year. Management has been giving 7 CL to its employees, therefore, their demand on this count is not justified and thus can not be met.
34. As regards sick leave, Management has been providing 7 sick leave to its employees in a year. Model 22 Standing Orders do not provide for any kind of sick leave. However, since Management has already been providing its workmen sick leave of 7 days in a year, demand of the more sick leave of the workmen is not legal and justified and thus can not be met.
35. As regards restricted holidays, no private hospitals including Management is providing restricted holidays nor Model Standing Orders provide for the same. I, accordingly, hold that demand of the workmen on this count is also not legal and justified and thus cannot be met.
36. As regards demands for festival holidays and national holidays are concerned, Management has been giving 4 festival holidays and 3 National holidays. Thus on both the counts, workmen are getting 7 holidays. Rule 10(a) of Model Standing Orders provides that '' there shall be seven paid festival holidays including three National Holidays. Management has already been providing 7 holidays on account of festival holidays and National Holidays. Therefore, demand of the workmen on these counts is also not legal and justified.
37. Since there is no evidence as regards grant of LTC to employees by the hospitals, demand of the workmen on this count is not legal and same can not be met. Secondly, keeping in view the financial condition of the 23 Management, the demand cannot be said to be justified.
38. As regards promotion, some of hospitals are giving promotion on completing service length of 8 years and majority of hospitals give promotion on performance basis. In this regard, it is for the Management to evolve a policy for promotion either based on performance basis or time bound basis but no specific orders in this regard can be given.
39. As regards conveyance allowance. Workmen in present are being paid wages as per Minimum Wages Act which is inclusive of conveyance allowance, therefore, no separate direction can be given in this regard. It is so because the workmen have failed to prove that the Management has been earning profits.
40. Demands of lockers, rest room and changing room It is deposed by WW--1 that every hospital is providing facilities of rest rooms, changing rooms and lockers to workmen but workmen involved in present case are not being provided by such facilities, therefore. Workmen are also entitled for such facilities. It has been argued on behalf of the workmen that Management is not providing any such facilities to them. On the other hand, it has been argued by AR for the management that Management has been providing such facilities.
41. So far as cloth changing room, rest room and 24 lockers are concerned, it should be noted that in hospitals para medical staff are required to put on uniform before they report for duty. Para medical staff consists of male and female. Therefore, as a responsible employer, Management is required to take into consideration necessity of separate arrangement for cloth changing room, rest room for male and female staff keeping in view requirement of decency and modesty and human dignity. Secondly, hospitals work round the clock. Para medical staff are put on duty in shifts, therefore, if duty comes to an end at midnight, certainly it will not be feasible for those employees to go to their homes at such odd hours. It is particularly so in case of female employees. Therefore, provisions of cloth changing room and rest room in the hospitals are necessary. Thirdly, even the workmen carry with them their valuables and important documents and it may be necessary to provide lockers to them to keep their valuables in safe custody. For that purpose, arrangements can be made in the ward where a particular employee is put on duty to provide him/ her a space for changing cloths as well as for taking rest or separate arrangement can be made separately at one place separately for male and female employees. Nothing has been placed on record as to what are the arrangements made by the Management hospital to 25 provide for clothes changing room/ rest room keeping in view nature of duties performed by the workmen and requirement of their putting on uniform while on duty and shift system as also the fact that duty comes to an end at odd hours at night, it will be necessary to make provision for cloth changing room, rest room and lockers facility separately for male and female staff and they are entitled thereto.
42. To my mind, this demand of the workmen is quite justified. If not already given, Management shall provide facilities of lockers, rest room and uniform changing room to the workmen. This issue is accordingly decided.
43. Relief:- In view of reasons given above, I hold that workmen are not entitled to claim pay at par with employees of Central Government and Union territories in accordance with recommendations of fifth Central Pay Commission. So far as leave benefits are concerned, they are entitled to 18 E.L., 7 CL ( already being given), 7 Sick Leave ( already being given), 7 Festival holidays including 3 National Holidays ( already being given). But they are not entitled for restricted holidays. They are not entitled to LTC. Workmen along with their wives, dependent minor children and dependent mother and father are entitled to free medical facilities. As regards promotion, Management should make some policy of promotion and 26 workmen be considered for promotion according to that policy. Workmen are also entitled for lockers, rest room and uniform changing rooms. They are not entitled for any other relief. Award is accordingly passed. Same be sent to GNCT of Delhi for publication. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court on 27.04.10 (BABU LAL) Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.