Delhi District Court
I.D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) vs The on 20 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA:
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I, ROUSE
AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS , NEW DELHI.
Ref. No.: F.24(44)ND/83/2011/Lab. /247-250 dated 23.4.2013
I.D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13)
Workman
Sh. Rajbir Singh
S/o Sh. Ishwar singh
as represented by
Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor
Union, D-2/24, Sultanpuri, New Delhi-86
Vs.
The Management of
M/s North Delhi Municipal Corporation
through its Commissioner
Town Hall
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-06
Date of institution : 26.04.2013
Date of reserving award : 27.04.2022
Date of award : 20.05.2022
(MORE THAN 09 YEARS OLD CASE)
AWAR D
1.Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute arising between the parties named above for adjudication to this Tribunal vide notification No.F.24(44)ND/83/2011/Lab./247-250 dated 23.4.2013 with following terms of the reference:-:-
I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 1 of 19 "Whether demand of workman Sh. Rajbir Singh S/o Sh. Ishwar singh for promotion on the post of Sanitary Guard w.e.f 10.12.1989 with arrears and consequential benefits either monetary or otherwise, is justified, and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Statement of claim has been filed by the claimant/workman, wherein it is claimed:
(a)Workman has been working as Safai Karamchari with the management at Circle No. 14, Azadpur, Delhi Civil line, Rajpur road, Delhi since 01.04.1984;
(b)Workman whose name has been mentioned in Notification No. 4398/OI-2/AC/CSE/89 at serial no. 12 has neither been given promotion to the post of Sanitary guard nor given the benefits of promotion;
(c) Management vide notification no 6387/DA-
1/AC/DEMS/Headquarters/2010 promoted the other workmen however, has not promoted the workman nor given him the benefits.;
(d)Management had regularized the services and promoted the workmen who were junior to the workman vide notification No. 50/DA-1/AC/DEMS/Hqs/2010, however, workman was neither been promoted nor given the benefits of promotion.
(e)Workman has requested his grievances to the Union and after becoming its member, discussed the matter with the union. Sh Narain Singh, General Secretary of the Union in I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 2 of 19 its General body meeting dated 30.3.11 where various workmen were present discussed the matter and after discussion, it was decided to send demand notice to the management;
(f) Workman sent demand notice to the union through registered AD dated 03.04.2011, but the management has not given any reply to the demand notice of the union nor heard the grievances of the said workman.
It is prayed in the Statement of claim to pass an award in favour of the workman and the management be directed to give him promotion on the post of Sanitary Guard w.e.f 10.12.1989 with arrears and consequential benefits either monetary or otherwise.
3. Written statement has been filed by the management, wherein objections have been taken:
(a) Present dispute is not an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the ID Act;
(b) Hindustan engineering and General Mazdoor union has no locus standi to raise the present dispute;
(c) Present dispute is not supported by massive majority of the same category of workmen;
(d) Present dispute has not been properly espoused by the Union and as such the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed;
(e) No demand notice has been served upon the I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 3 of 19 management as such, the present dispute is not an industrial dispute and therefore reference is bad in law and liable to be rejected;
(f) Workman was not having the requisite educational qualification for the post of Sanitary Guide and as such question of his promotion to the post of Sanitary Guide or payment of any promotional benefits to the workman does not arise at all and hence the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed.
Rest of the contentions of the statement of claim more or less are denied.
4. Rejoinder has been filed by the workman, wherein all objections raised in the preliminary objections have been denied and the contentions made in the statement of claim are reiterated and affirmed.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 29.04.2014:-
"(i) Whether present dispute is an Industrial dispute as defined in Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act? OPW
(ii) Whether the present claim of the workman has been properly espoused by the Union? OPW
(iii) Whether any notice of demand was served upon management, if not, its effect?OPW I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 4 of 19
(iv) Whether Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union has locus standi to raise the present dispute? OPW
(v) As per terms of reference
6. To prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex.WW1/A, in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim. He has also relied upon documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/14, which are:-
i. Ex WW1/1 is the photocopy of circular No. 4396/OI-
II/AC/CSE/09 dated 10.12.1989;
ii. Ex WW1/2 is photocopy of the circular no. 6387/DA-
I/AC/DEMS/HQs/2010 dated 09.04.2010;
iii. Ex.WW1/3 is photocopy of the circular no. 50/DA-
1/AC/DEMS/HQs/2010 dated 12.05.2010;
iv. Ex.WW1/4(colly) are the subscription receipts of Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union. v. Ex. WW1/5 and Ex. WW1/6 being photocopies are Mark A and B. vi. Ex. WW1/7 is the photocopy of demand notice sent to the management;
vii. Ex. WW1/8 to Ex. WW1/10 are the postal receipts; viii.Ex. WW1/11 is the copy of claim filed before Conciliation officer;
ix. Ex WW1/12 is photocopy of the letter written by workman to the Health officer of the management;
I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 5 of 19 x. Ex. WW1/13 and Ex. WW1/14 are photocopies of the letters written by the workman to the management.
WW-1 has been cross-examined on behalf of management. Thereafter, workman examined WW-2 in support of his case.
WW-2 Sh Narain Singh, appeared in the witness box as WW-2 and deposed that workman has addressed his grievances to the union and got membership of the union. The General Secretary of union Sh. Narayan Singh held a General body meeting on 30.03.2011 and agenda of the union has been decided vide Ex.
WW2/1. WW-2 has also relied upon document Mark B. WW2 was also cross-examined by ld. AR for management at length and thereafter, workman closed his evidence vide separate statement.
7. Management has not examined any witness in support of its case despite several opportunities given to it. Hence, ME was closed and case was fixed for final arguments.
8. I have gone through the entire record of the case including pleadings of the parties, evidence led and documents proved during evidence.
9. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of workman and management. During arguments, ld. AR for workman has submitted that workman was not given the post of Sanitary Guard I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 6 of 19 despite his name being mentioned in notification No. 4396/OI-2/AC/ CSI/89 and notification No. 6387/DA-1/AC/DEMS/Headquarters/ 2010, however, he is entitled for promotion since 10.12.1989. Hence, award be passed in favour of workman by giving his promotion as Sanitary Guard since 10.12.1989 with all consequential benefits.
10. Per Contra, ld. AR for management has argued that workman neither had the requisite qualification nor experience and he was not entitled for promotion for the post of Sanitary Guide. In fact, the workman had joined w.e.f 01.04.1984 as per phase manner policy of the management/SDMC in pay scale of Rs. 196-232 on the post of Safair Karamchari and workman is getting all the lawful dues since then including ACP benefits. It is further argued that at the time of filing of WS, the workman was getting salary of Rs.5,200/- to Rs. 20,200/-. It is further argued that the workman was not having requisite qualification and requisite experience for promotion for the post of Sanitary Guide, hence, he cannot be considered for the said promotion of Sanitary Guide. It is further argued that the management has every right to promote the eligible candidates even if they are junior to the workman as the workman was not having requisite qualification and experience and the payment of any promotional benefits to the workman does not arise at all. Hence, the claim of the workman is false and without any basis and illegal and hence, same is deserved dismissal with exemplary costs.
I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 7 of 19
11. My issue wise findings are:-
Issue no.1:
" Whether present dispute is an Industrial Dispute as defined in Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act? OPW Issue no.2:
"(iii)Whether the present claim of the workman has been properly espoused by the Union? OPW"
This Tribunal is going to decide issues no. 1 and 2 by common findings as both these issues are legal issues, have to be decided in the light of facts of the case.
To decide these issues, this Tribunal refers Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act which defines as:
2(k) "industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person.
Thus, from the plain reading of Section 2(k) of Industrial Dispute Act, it is clear that every dispute under the category of Industrial Dispute Act has to be between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, but which are connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 8 of 19 conditions of labour of any person. Therefore, to bring the dispute under the category of Section 2(k) of Industrial Dispute Act, there should be raising of dispute pertaining to the conditions of employment or non employment of any person.
Now, the question arises who can raise this dispute. The Industrial Dispute can be raised certainly within the frame work of Industrial Dispute Act and it has to be raised by the Union who can establish that dispute is of employment or non employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person. Therefore, for this purpose, the Tribunal has to see whether there is support of sufficient number of workmen towards raising of this dispute.
This process to raise the dispute by sufficient number of workmen has to be termed as espousal and thus issues no. 1 and 2 are interconnected inasmuch as if the espousal is there in favour of the workman to raise the present dispute, then certainly the dispute covers under the category of Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act.
For an industrial dispute there should be an espousal by passing a resolution to raise the dispute. Thus, this Tribunal has framed issue no. 2.
To prove issue no. 2, WW-2 has relied upon copy of registration of Union which is Mark B which is a photocopy and another document Ex. WW2/1 which is also photocopy and stated to be the meeting of agenda.
WW-1 during cross-examination deposed that he is member of Narayan Singh union since 2013. WW-1 further deposed that I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 9 of 19 executive committee of the Union consists of 10-12 persons, out of which he only knows the name of Raj Kumar President and Suresh, whose designation he did not know. WW-1 further deposed that he had given written complaint to the Union in the year 2005. WW-1 further deposed that union had called the meeting regarding his case in the year 2012 or 2013 but he did not remember the date of the meeting. WW-1 further deposed that in the meeting, 7-8 persons were present including him. WW-1 further deposed that minutes of the meeting were recorded on a paper and he had also signed the same but he has not brought the original minutes in the court proceedings. WW-1 denied the suggestion that no such meeting was ever held and no minutes were ever recorded and that is why the original minutes have not been brought by him. WW-1 denied the suggestion that his dispute was never espoused by the union.
WW-2 during cross-examination deposed that he is General Secretary of the Union since 1994. WW-2 admitted that he has neither filed nor brought any minutes of the meeting in which he was elected as General Secretary of the Union. WW-2 further deposed hat he has not filed copy of the constitution of the union. WW-2 further deposed that he was lastly elected as General Secretary of the union in the year 2016. WW-1 denied the suggestion that his union does not represent sufficient number of workmen of similar category. WW-1 admitted that list of members of union has not been filed on record.
Hence, the espousal Ex. WW2/1 is not proved as it does I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 10 of 19 not bear the signatures of the General Secretary. Even WW-1 has not stated in his affidavit that Narayan Singh was the General Secretary of Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union. In cross-examination, WW-1 could tell only the name of the President and one Suresh. Moreover, WW-1 has only deposed that he is member of Narayan Singh union since 2013. He has not deposed that he is member of union namely Hindustan Engineering and General Majdoor Union. Moreover, certificate of registration of trade union has not been proved inasmuch as this document is a photocopy and what prevented the workman to bring the certificate of registration of trade union - not explained. Further, it is not the case of workman/WW-1 that his cause has been espoused by appreciable number of workmen as he himself stated that in the meeting of the union, 7-8 persons were present including himself. Thus, substantial number of workmen were not present during the meeting. Moreover, it is the case of the workman himself that executive committee of union was consisting of 10/12 persons. Therefore, if both the evidences are considered together, then, certainly all members of the executive committee were not present when the alleged resolution was passed. Moreover, it is not the case that the President of the Union was present on that day when the meeting was called. It is not the case of the workman that Resolution was signed by the President of the Union or without signature of President of the Union, the said resolution was valid as per constitution of the union. The constitution of the Union has not been brought before this Tribunal. Moreover, photocopy of I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 11 of 19 resolution dated 30.03.2011 has been brought and signatures of the General Secretary has not been proved.
Here, this tribunal refers the case laws:
12. In M/s Hotel Samrat vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2007 LLR 386 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court), it has been held:-
"12. The dispute between an individual workman and the employer can be treated as an industrial dispute only where the workmen as a body or a considerable section of them, make common cause with the individual workman and espoused his demand. The question arises how the espousal can be inferred. Espousal means that the dispute of an individual workman is adapted by union as its own dispute or a large number of workmen give support to the cause of an individual workman. In the instant case, the only evidence available on record about espousal of the cause is the statement of the Secretary of the Union made before the Tribunal. In his statement, he stated that he requested the management to treat workman Hira Singh at par with other employees and grant him regular pay scale and he met the management for this purpose and on his pursuance, the management started deducting provident fund from salary of the workman Hira Singh. There is no evidence apart from this evidence about the espousal of the cause. Does mere lending of name of the union by the union secretary while raising the conciliation proceedings or for issuing notice amount to 'espousal' of cause'? Union is a representative body of the workmen. The cause of any workman can be espoused collectively by the Executive Body of the union by taking a decision in this respect. This decision may not be taken in a formal manner but can be taken in an informal manner but it has to be a collective decision of the executive body of the union. An individual member of the Executive body cannot take the character of the entire union and cannot bind the union. Merely because the union secretary met the management and requested for giving a regular appointment letter to the workman, would not amount to espousal of the cause. In this case, this is the only evidence available on record in respect of espousal. In J.H. Jadhav's case(supra), the Supreme Court observed that the union must formally express itself in the form of a resolution which should be approved by its members. However, the number of supporting members of the union may be relevant depending upon facts of each case. In 1961 II LLJ 436 Bombay Union of Journalists v. Hindi Bombay, the Supreme Court observed that an individual dispute can take the I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 12 of 19 character of an industrial dispute only if it was proved that it was, before it was referred, supported by union of employees. In each case, for ascertaining whether an individual dispute has assumed character of an industrial dispute, the test is whether on the date of reference, the dispute was taken up and supported by the union of the workmen of the employer against whom the dispute is raised by the individual workman or by an appreciable number of employees. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that notice of the meeting for the purpose of considering request by the members for tenable cause of concerned workmen was not given to the employees of the Hindu Board which were not the members of the union at the relevant time. Hence, by mere passing of a resolution by other members of the union, the case of the appellant that the cause of concern workmen was supported by the other employees of Hindu Board, could not be supported. The Supreme Court observed that unless an individual dispute was taken up by union of employees of the employer or by appreciable number of employees of the union, it remains as an individual dispute and does not become an industrial dispute. In 2001(89) FLR 458 Prakash and Ors v. Superintending Engineer(ELEL) and Ors, the Karnataka High Court observed that an individual can raise a dispute, only for removal, termination or dismissal. If the workman wants to raise a dispute for his absorption and regularization, that can only be done through the union on behalf of workman or workmen."
13. In Tirupathi Cotton Mills Ltd Vs. Labour Court and anr, (1968) II LLJ 723 AP it has been held in para no. 10:
"It is unnecessary to multiply cases Sufficient to say that unless there is a concerned action evidencing indication on the part of a substantial or appreciable number of workmen of the establishment it will be impossible to hold that the dispute, which on the face of it must be regarded as an individual dispute, has been converted into an industrial dispute. It is only then we may assume that it was a collective bargaining on the part of the workers with the employers. This concerned action may as well be evinced by a union which is substantially interested in the dispute as having a large number of members of the employees of that establishment".
14. In J. H. Jadhav Vs. M/s Forbes Gokak Ltd Appeal I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 13 of 19 (Civil) 1089 of 2005 it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as:
"............The definition of "Industrial Dispute" in Section 2(k) of the Act shows that an Industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between an employer and employers or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of the employment or with the condition of labour, of any person. The definition has been the subject matter of several decisions of this Court and the law is well settled. The locus classicus is the decision in Workmen of M/s Dharampal Premchand(Saughandhi) Vs. M/s Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) 1965 (3) SCR 394 where it was held that for the purposes of Section 2(k) it must be shown that (1) the dispute is connected with the employment or non employment of a workman (2) the dispute between a single workman and his employer was sponsored or espoused by the Union of workmen or by a number of workmen. The phrase "the union"
merely indicates the Union to which the employee belongs even though it may be a Union of a minority of the workmen. (3) the establishment had no union on its own and some of the employees had joined the Union of other establishment belonging to the same industry. In such a case it would be open to that Union to take up the cause of the workmen if it is sufficiently representative of those workmen, despite the fact that such Union was not exclusively of the workmen working in the establishment concerned. An illustration of what had been anticipated in Dharam Pal's case is to be found in the Workmen of Indian Express Newspaper (Pvt.) Ltd Vs. Management of Indian Express Newspaper Private Ltd AIR 1970 SC 737 where an 'outside' union was held to be sufficiently representative to espouse the cause.........."
15. Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd, Madras Vs. Buckingham and Carnatic Mills Staff Union and anr. AIR 1960 Mad 106 in para no. 5 held:
"5. In an early case in this Court, Kandan Textiles vs. Industrial Tribunal, MANU/TN/0159/1951: (1949) NULLLLJ 875 Mad, which was decided by a Division Bench of which one of us was a party, it was definitely held that there could be no collective dispute unless at least a substantial number of the employees in the establishment as a whole or in the concerned part of the establishment should be at dispute. It was also pointed out that it was not necessary that before the Government could make a I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 14 of 19 valid order referring a dispute to the Tribunal the majority of the workmen should be ranged as one of the parties. A collective dispute is thus described:
A dispute between the employer on the one hand and the entire establishment or part of the establishment on the other hand in which case it is reasonable to presume that at least a substantial number of the employees in the establishment as a whole or in the concerned part of the establishment should be at dispute.
In Manager, United Commercial Bank Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Labour, Madras, MANU/TN/0015/1951: (1951) I LLJ 1 Mad, Viswanatha Sastri J, agreed with this view of an industrial dispute and said:
"The distinction between an individual dispute and an industrial dispute is, if I may respectfully say so, well brought out in the judgment of my Lord in MANU/ TN/0159/1951:
(1949) NULLLLJ 875 Mad, citing inter alia a passage from the judgment of Isaacs J. in George Hudson Ltd Vs. Australian Timber Works Union, (1922) 32 CLR 413, ....if the resuming workman or a substantial body of them or a union of workmen takes up the cause of the victimised employee and demands his reinstatement, there is an industrial dispute.
In Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1956 Mad 115, this view was again followed by Rajagopalan J.A different view was however taken, though not by this Court. The point was considered in detail by Venkatarama Aiyer J, in C.P. Transport Service Ltd, Nagpur Vs. Raghunatha Gopal, (S) MANU/SC/ 0067/1956: (1957) I LLJ 27 SC. His Lordship referred to the three different views taken by the High Courts and Industrial Tribunals in the country, namely, (1) a dispute which concerns only the rights of individual workers cannot be held to be an industrial dispute, (2) a dispute between an employer and a single employee can be an industrial dispute and (3) a dispute between an employer and a single employee cannot per se be an industrial dispute but it may become one if it is taken by the Union or a number of workmen. Venkatarama Aiyar J, was of the opinion that there was considerable reason behind the third of the views and the preponderance of judicial opinion was clearly in favour of it. He observed:
Notwithstanding that the language of Section 2(k) is wide enough to cover a dispute between an employer and a single employee, the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act does appear to contemplate that the machinery provided therein should be set in motion, to settle only disputes which involve the rights of workmen as a class and that a dispute touching the individual rights of a workman was not intended to be the subject of an adjudication under the Act, when the same had not been taken up by the Union or a number of workmen.
6. In another case, namely, Newspapers Ltd Vs. State I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 15 of 19 Industrial Tribunal, U.P(S) MANU/SC/ 0078/1957: (1957) II LLJ 1 SC, the Supreme Court expressly approved the view taken by this Court in MANU/TN/0159/1951: (1949) NULLLLJ 875 Mad and other cases following it.
Therefore, in view of facts and law discussed here-in- above, this Tribunal is of the considered view that workman is not able to prove issues no. 1 and 2. There is no espousal in favour of the present workman to raise the present dispute. Since, there is no espousal to raise the present dispute, therefore, this is not an industrial dispute. Therefore, both issues no. 1 and 2 are answered against the workman.
16. Issue no. 3. Whether any notice of demand was served upon management, if not, its effect? OPW The onus to prove this issue was on the workman. To prove this issue workman has relied upon a document which is tendered in evidence as Ex. WW1/7, which is photocopy of demand notice. Original postal receipts have been placed on record. Authenticity of postal receipts is not under challenge. It is the case of the management that demand notice has not been served upon the management. However, in view of postal receipts submitted and proved before the Tribunal, this Tribunal is the opinion that workman is able to prove this issue and accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the workman.
17. Issue no 4. Whether Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor union has locus standi to raise the present dispute? .......OPW I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 16 of 19 The onus to prove this issue was on the workman. However, to prove this issue workman has relied upon certificate of registration of trade union wherein it is certified that Hindustan engineering and General Mazdoor Union has been registered under the Trade union Act, 1926, however, this document is only a photocopy. What prevented WW-1 or WW-2 to bring this document in original- not explained. Further WW-1 deposed during his deposition that he is member of Narayan Singh union. He has not deposed in his entire testimony that he is member of Hindustan engineering and General Mazdoor Union.
Moreover, WW-2 in Ex. WW-2/A has not deposed that he is General Secretary of Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor union. Further, it is the case of WW-1 himself that he is member of Narayan Singh Union. Moreover, WW-2 has not proved his signatures on Ex. WW2/1. Hence, neither WW-1, nor WW-2 has proved that they are in any manner related to Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union. In such circumstances, workman is not able to prove issue no. 4 i.e. workman is not able to prove that Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor union has locus standi to raise the present dispute.
18. Issue No. 5 Terms of reference.
In Ex. WW1/A, WW-1 has deposed that management vide notification no. 6387/DA-1/AC/DEMS/Headquarter/2010 promoted the workman as Sanitary Guard. But despite this fact, management neither gave promotion to the workman, nor, promotion benefits were given to the workman, whereas, other workmen namely Lila I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 17 of 19 Ram, Desh Raj, Naval Sain etc were getting promotional benefits. Notification dated 09.04.2010 is on record as Ex. WW1/2. It is mentioned in the said notification regarding RDA/police case report in respect of Sanitary guides. However, only photocopy has been brought on record which is Ex. WW1/2. During cross-examination, WW-1 deposed that in the list Ex. WW1/2 his name was included but finally he was not promoted to the post of Sanitary Guide. However, during cross-examination, WW-1 deposed that copy of grant of ACP to him is Ex. WW1/M1.
Ex. WW1/M1 is perused wherein it is mentioned that Deputy Commissioner, Civil Line Zone has been pleased to serve the benefit of scheme in the pay scale of 2750-4400 on 01.07.2013. During further cross-examination, WW-1 admitted that Ex. WW1/M2 is the recruitment rules for the post of Sanitary Guide wherein it is mentioned that qualification for the post of Sanitary Guide safai Karamcharies with three years regular service and have passed middle class from a recognized School/Board or equivalent is mentioned. However, during the entire evidence, the workman neither deposed nor brought the necessary document to prove that he was middle class pass. Since, workman is not able to prove his qualification as prescribed, he is not entitled for the promotion to the post of Sanitary Guide. Thus, workman is not able to discharge the onus to prove this issue. Thus, terms of reference are answered against the workman.
19. Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 18 of 19 for publication. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA KUMAR
KUMAR MISHRA
Announced in open Tribunal MISHRA
Date: 2022.05.20
16:13:30 +0530
on this 20th day of May, 2022 (Jitendra Kumar Mishra)
POIT-I/Rouse Avenue Courts,ND
New Delhi
I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 19 of 19
I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 20 of 19 I. D. No. 884/16 (Old No. 99/13) Rajbir Singh Vs. NDMC Page No. 21 of 19