Delhi District Court
Geeta vs Djb on 28 October, 2025
POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
POIT No. 29/2020
CNR No. DLCT13-002721-2020
Geeta
W/o Sh. Sunil Kumar,
R/o 656, Village Bajitpur,
Thakran, Delhi-110039.
Through:
General Secretary,
Municipal Emloyees Union
Agarwal Bhawan, GT Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054 ... Workman
Versus
Delhi Jal Board,
Through its Chief Executive Officer
Varunalaya Building, Phase-II
Jhandewalan Extension
New Delhi-110005 ....Management
Date of institution 07.03.2020
Order reserved on 26.09.2025
Date of Award 28.10.2025
AWARD
1.Dy. Labour Commissioner, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute for adjudication to Tribunal vide notification No. F-.24(11)/18/Ref./CD/Lab./43 dated 15.01.2020 with following terms of the reference:
Award Page 1 of 16 Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANANGAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.10.28
13:35:33
+0530
POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
"Whether demand of workman Smt. Geeta W/o Late Shri Sunil Kumar, age around 42 years for regularization on the post of LDC with retrospective effect from her initial date of joining into the employment and entire difference of salary on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work alongwith all arrears thereof, either monetary or otherwise, is legal and justified, and if so, what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
Statement of Claim
2. It is the claim of the workman that her husband Late Shri Sunil Kumar joined into the employment of the Management in 1998 on the post of driver. He was discharging his services to the entire satisfaction of his superiors and has unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to his credit. During the employment of the management, Shri Sunil Kumar unfortunately expired on 26.05.2006 leaving behind his family members in harness.
3. Thereafter, workman Geeta (wife of deceased) was appointed on compassionate ground on the post of peon- cum-Assistant Meter Reader on 23.10.2006 but though the workman was taken in job as peon-cum-Assistant Meter Reader but actually the management was taking the job of LDC (Lower Division Clerk) from her. Furthermore, though workman was supposed to be appointed on regular basis but she was taken in a job as a daily wager, and subsequently, w.e.f. 01.04.2011, she was regularized on the post of peon-cum- Assistant Meter Reader.
Award Page 2 of 16POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
4. It is stated that when workman joined into job she was Xth standard pass and when she was regularized in service she was 12th standard pass.
5. It is stated that the workman was discharging the job of LDC since 13.11.2006. In 2006, the workman was posted in Narela ZRO till 2011. In the said ZRO, she was looking after all the works pertaining to new water connection, issuance of dues report, issuance of bills regarding re- opening and cutting and was also issuing manual bills. As such, she was discharging all the duties of LDC since her initial joining.
6. Thereafter the workman was transferred in Kanhaiya Nagar-ZRO, where, she worked from 2011 to September 2013. There also, the workman was doing the work of diary dispatch and all other works of LDC.
7. Workman was transferred in September, 2013 in the office of Chief Water Analyst at Haider Pur Water Works and till date, she is discharging her duties in the said office. In this office at Haiderpur also the workman is doing the job of preparing salary sheets of employees and doing the job of pay fixation, dealing with LTC Cases, Medical Bills and Hospitals etc, as such. she is discharging the duties of the LDC only.
Award Page 3 of 16POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
8. It is stated that the action of the management regarding non appointment and non regularization of the workman on the post of LDC since her initial date of joining on regular basis and nonpayment of salary on the Principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is illegal, unjust and malafide because the workman is very much qualified for her appointment and regularization on the post of LDC.
9. It is submitted that workman is continuously discharging the duties of LDC since her initial joining in 2006 to till date and hence she is very much supposed to be appointed on the post of LDC on regular basis retrospectively.
10.Workman has averred that Shri Kawal Jeet S/o Shri Jagdev Singh was also taken in a job as muster roll LDC and he was also having the same qualification in 2006 and he was regularized on the post of LDC w.e.f. 01.04.2011 while the workman has been regularized on the post of peon-cum-Assistant Meter Reader only w.e.f. 01.04.2011.
11.It is stated that the job of LDC which the workman is discharging since her initial date of joining is of regular and permanent nature and she has acquired the status of permanent LDC since her initial date of joining after completing 90 days of continuous service on the post of LDC as provided in the Model standing order framed under the Industrial Employment Standing Order Act, 1946.
Award Page 4 of 16POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
12.It is stated that under the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, workman has acquired the status of a permanent LDC after completing 240 days of continuous employment.
13.It is averred that since initial date of joining, the workman has been performing the duties of LDC which carries Higher Pay Scale. However, the management has not paid her the salary of post from the period of her initial date of joining till date and it is against the principle of equal pay for equal work as mentioned in the Constitution of India. In fact the management has exploited the services rendered by the workman and the said action on their part amounts to unfair labour practice. It is submitted that pay scale of LDC is 5200-20200 grade Pay 1900 whereas the pay scale of Peon Cum Asst. Meter Reader is 5200-20200 grade Pay 1800.
14.It is averred that workman is entitled to the pay of post of LDC but the same has been denied to her whereas, her other counter parts who are working as LDC are being paid for the said post and said action on the part of the management amounts to unfair labour practice. It is submitted that workman also fulfill the qualification for the post of LDC as per recruitment rules and the action of management is denying her dues, is violative of Article 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. And amounts to unfair labour practice as provided under the Industrial Dispute Act.
Award Page 5 of 16POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
15.It is stated that workman was discharging same duties as were being discharged by his regular counterparts. In fact the working hours, responsibilities, education, recruitment procedure & nature of work discharged by workman concerned is same as being discharged by his regular counterparts. As such, the workman is entitled to same wages as are being paid to his regular counterparts on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" during the aforesaid period.
16.Workman has submitted that a demand notice dated 25.09.2018 was served upon the management by registered post, which was duly received in their office, but no reply has been received and, it is presumed that the demand has been rejected. Thereafter, conciliation proceedings were also initiated but same resulted into failure due to adamant and non co-operative attitude of the management.
17. Workman has prayed that an Award be made in her favour and the management be directed to regularize the services of workman on the post of LDC with retrospective effect from her initial date of joining and to pay her the entire difference of salary on the principle of equal pay on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" with all arrears thereof. She is also claiming cost of litigation as provided in Section 11 (7) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Award Page 6 of 16POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
Written Statement
18.Management in its written statement admitted that workman was engaged to the post of PCAMR (Peon Cum Asstt Meter Reader) as group 'D' post on Compassionate Ground on Muster Roll in November 2006 in place of death of her husband Sh. Sunil Kumar in DJB and thereafter her regularization was in line with the policy of Delhi Jal Board for all such cases regarding engagement of workmen on compassionate grounds. The reference is liable to be rejected on this ground alone.
19.It is stated that dispute has not been properly espoused by the Union to term it as an Industrial Dispute and the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the workman challenging the validity and legality of recruitment rules and policy of appointment on compassionate ground of the management and policy of regularization.
20.Management has stated that workman was initially engaged as PCAMR on Muster Roll in November 2006. Accordingly, her services were regularized on the same post, on which was initially engaged, which was accepted by her vide her acceptance dated 02.09.2011. The workman was never engaged or regularized as LDC.
21.On merits it is stated that workman has never been performing the duties of LDC and no such order in this Award Page 7 of 16 POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
regard was ever issued by the Administration of the management. It is further submitted that as per 6 th CPC recommendation, all Group 'D' posts in the Government were upgraded to Group 'C', Accordingly, all the Group 'D' employees were placed in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/-.
22.It is stated that the change of nomenclature of the post of Peon-cum-AMR which was erstwhile a Group 'D' post is now Group 'C' post in Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/-Grade Pay, is under process for change of nomenclature of this post. However, their duties and responsibilities were also increased vide OM no. AB- 14017/6/2009-Estt (RR) dated 30th April 2010, which were performed by Smt. Geeta a part of her duties. Hence the workman is drawing proper pay scale according to her educational qualifications and the reference is liable to be rejected on this ground also. Issues
23.On 28.09.2021, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1) As per terms of reference?
2) Relief.
Workman's Evidence
24. In order to prove his 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. Workman proved the documents as Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/24.
Award Page 8 of 16POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
Management's Evidence
25. Management examined MW1 Ms. Suvarna Tushaba Shinde Ogale, Assistant Commissioner of management who tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.MW1/A. During her cross-examined by AR for the workman, MW1 deposed as under:
Workman has never worked under me. I do not have any personal knowledge as to nature of duties performed by the workman. At this stage, documents, Ex. WW1/8, Ex. WW1/10, Ex. WW1/11, Ex. WW1/12, Ex. WW1/13, Ex. WW1/14, Ex. WW1/15, Ex. WW1/16, Ex. WW1/17, Ex. WW1/18 and Ex. WW1/23 are put to the witness and witness submits that the authenticity of the documents are not in dispute.
At this stage, documents now Ex.MW1/X-1 to Ex. MWI/X- 9 is shown to the witness, witness admits the documents to be issued by the management.
Workman has never worked under me. I do not have any personal knowledge as to nature of duties performed by the workman. At this stage, documents, Ex. WW1/8, Ex. WW1/10, Ex. WW1/11, Ex. WW1/12, Ex. WW1/13, Ex. WW1/14, Ex. WW1/15, Ex. WW1/16, Ex. WW1/17, Ex. WW1/18 and Ex. WW1/23 are put to the witness and witness submits that the authenticity of the documents are not in dispute.
At this stage, documents now Ex.MW1/X-1 to Ex.MWI/X- 9 is shown to the witness, witness admits the documents to be issued by the management.
The concerned workman was appointed on compassionate ground in place of her late husband. She was treated as muster roll employee and workman is B.A. pass (Graduate). The work and conduct of the concerned Award Page 9 of 16 POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
workman is satisfactory and there is no complaint against her.
It is also correct that she is repeatedly representing the management to be treated/appointed as LDC. The reason given by management for not treating/appointing her as LDC is that the management has appointed her on the post of Peon-cum-Assistant Meter Reader. (Vol. This was the sole reason). However, she has to pass the exam for the post of LDC and without that she cannot be appointed as LDC. It is wrong to suggest that workman has to pass the exam for LDC. I have no understanding about espousal which I have mentioned in Para 4 of my affidavit.....
Analysis and Discussion Issue No.1: As per terms of reference.
26.Workman is seeking regularization of her service on the post of LDC from the date of her joining on the ground that since joining of her service, she is discharging the work of LDC.
27.Description of duty of the workman : Fact not in dispute is that management appointed workman on compassionate ground on 23.10.2006 vide letter as Ex WW1/12 on the post of peon-cum-assistant Meter Reader and subsequently, w.e.f 01.04.2011 she was regularized on the said post.
28.Workman has proved an official letter dated 12.04.2019 as Ex.WW1/7 which mentions that workman Geeta was Award Page 10 of 16 POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
posted in LDC & UDC in Establishment Section. It is stated in the letter that due to her qualification and past experience she was given work of establishment and she did the work without any complaint.
29.The following documents in respect of duties assigned to the workman are proved on record:
S Exhibit Order Date Nature of Work
1 Ex WW1/8 22.07.2011 To work as Diarist
2 Ex MW1/X-9 28.03.2014 To assist in preparing medical bills 3 Ex MW1/X-7 03.03.2017 To assist in updation of leave account in PF & S Book 4 Ex MW1/X-8 29.09.2018 To work in account Section for helping account work 5 Ex MW1/X-6 27.11.2020 To work in account Section
30.Above office orders of the management proves that workman has been discharging the duties of a LDC since inception of appointment with the management.
31.Eligibility: During course of her cross-examination, MW1 Ms. Suvarna Tushaba Shinde Ogale admitted that workman is a Graduate. Workman has also proved on record documents as Ex.WW1/18 to Ex.WW1/21 to prove her educational qualification. As such, it is not in dispute that workman has requisite educational qualification required for the post of LDC.
Award Page 11 of 16POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
32.Entitlement: MW1 has deposed that the sole reason for not treating/appointing workman as LDC is that the management has appointed her on the post of Peon-cum- Assistant Meter Reader.
33.In present case, it stands established that the management assigned workman duties of LDC and the workman performed the work assigned to her to the satisfaction of management. In such a scenario, it is not open to the management to question its own action. Management in its wisdom assigned her work of LDC and after taking work from the workman of that post, management cannot be allowed back-track and deny the workman status and salary equal to a regular LDC which a LDC gets while performing the similar job/ functions, otherwise that will amount to beggar which cannot be allowed in light of Article 23 of the Indian Constitution.
34.In the present case also the following facts emerge:
a) Workman has rendered continuous and uninterrupted service since 2006, and she is performing the permanent and perennial nature of work as a LDC since 13.11.2006.
b) Workman has requisite qualification for the job.
c) Letter Ex.WW1/7 establishes that workman did the work assigned to her without any complaint and she is a hardworking employee.Award Page 12 of 16
POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
35. The Industrial Disputes Act at Item No. 10 of Fifth Schedule outlines Unfair Labour Practice as "to employ workmen as badlies, casual temporaries, and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen." Such practice is not only prohibited under Section 25T but also punishable under Section 25U of Industrial Disputes Act.
36.In industrial adjudications, where the employer has kept the permanent posts unfilled and indulged in the unfair labour practice of keeping workman on a temporary basis over prolonged periods of time, the statutory power of the industrial adjudicator to grant relief to the workman, including the status of permanency, continues, in such a case, Industrial Tribunal has the power to pass an order for regularization of the workman.
37. 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 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, Award Page 13 of 16 POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
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.
38. Recently, in Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr . in Civil Appeal no. 8558 of 2018, vide judgment dated 19.08.2025 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 keep public offices running."Award Page 14 of 16
POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
39. Workman has given sustained contribution to the management. There is no adverse remark against her. In view of undisputed service of the workman at the post of LDC and the perennial nature of duty, as held in above authoritative judgments, the service of the workman is entitled to be regularized on the post of LDC from the date when she was assigned the duties of workman with all consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise.
40.As far as the question of equal pay for equal work is concerned, since the workman is performing the same work as being performed by her regular counterparts and there was no change in his work, working hours, roles, and responsibilities both pre and post-regularization, it is held that she is entitled to the difference in wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Relief
41. In the light of above discussions, it is held that the workman Geeta w/o Sh. Sunil Kumar is entitled to regularization in service on the post of LDC from 13.11.2006 (the date she was assigned the duties of LDC) in the regular pay scale with all consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise.
Workman Geeta is also held to be entitled to the difference in wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work.Award Page 15 of 16
POIT No. 29/2020 "Geeta Vs. Delhi Jal Board "
Management shall implement the award within 30 days of the the 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. 15.01.2020 till its realization. The award is passed accordingly. Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication within 15 days of the receipt of this Award. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 28th Day of October2025.
Digitally
signed by
GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
GAUTAM MANAN PRESIDING OFFICER,
MANAN Date:
2025.10.28 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
16:25:21
+0530 ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Award Page 16 of 16