Delhi District Court
Satya Narain vs Djb on 18 November, 2025
POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
POIT No. 386/2016
CNR No. DLCT13-002498-2015
1.Sh. Satya Narayan S/o Sh. Ram Singh
2. Sh. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagwan Asray As represented by Secretary Municipal Employees Union, Agarwal Bhawan, G. T. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi - 110054. ..... Workman Versus Delhi Jal Board, through Its Chief Executive Officer Varunalaya, Phase-II, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110002. .... Management Date of Institution 19.10.2015 Order reserved on 16.10.2025 Date of Award 18.11.2025 AWARD
1. Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute vide F.24(151) /CD/15/Lab./832 dated 21.09.2015 for adjudication with following terms of the reference:
Award 1 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
"Whether demand for regularization of Shri Satya Narain & 1 Ors (As shown in Annexure A) on the post of Driver in the proper pay scale from the date of their initial appointment and arrears on the principle of "Equal pay for Equal Work"
are justified; and if so, to what relief is are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
Statement of Claim
2. Statement of claim have been filed on behalf of following workmen:
S.No Name & Parentage Date of Appointment 1 Satya Narain S/o Sh. Ram Singh 15.11.1999 2 Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagwan 16.09.1998 Asray
3. Workmen have stated that they were engaged as Vehicle Driver on contract basis at monthly salary of Rs 3500/- per month and though it was mentioned that contract of employment would automatically end on expiry of 6 months but workmen continued discharging their service.
4. It is stated that management vide Office Order dated 18.05.2009 regularized the service of the workmen w.e.f 01.04.2007 but on the post of Beldar and financial benefits were given to the workman w.e.f 09.09.2008.
5. It is stated that management was supposed to regularize the service of workman on the post of Driver from date of their Award 2 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
initial joining but they were regularized in May 2009 that too on the post of Beldar.
6. It is stated that, the aforesaid action of the management in non-regularizing the services of the workmen on the post of Driver since initial date of his joining and the non-payment of arrears of salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work is totally illegal, bad, unjust and malafide as the job against which the workmen are working is of a regular and permanent nature of job.
7. It is stated that the workmen were discharging the duties of vehicle driver since initial date of their joining and as such their services were supposed to be regularized on the post of Driver. It is stated that though vide Office Order dated 18.05.2009 the management has regularized their services as Beldar only despite that workmen were discharging the duties of a Driver and this fact has also been mentioned in the Office Order dated 18.05.2009 of the management that such regularized Beldar be allowed to ply departmental vehicles on the extra fixed allowance @ Rs. 400/- p.m and the management is taking the work of Driver from the workmen since their respective joining and paying salary to him only of a Beldar and that too from 09.09.2008.
Award 3 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
8. It is stated that the job of Driver which the workmen are discharging since their initial date of joining is of regular and permanent nature of job and they have acquired the status of permanent Driver since their initial date of joining after completing 90 days of continuous service on the post of Driver as provided in the Model standing order framed under the Industrial Employment Standing Order Act, 1946. Even otherwise under the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, they have acquired the status of a permanent Driver after completing 240 days of continuous employment.
9. It is stated that since their initial date of joining, the workmen have been performing the duties of Driver which carries Higher Pay Scale. However, the management did not pay workmen the salary of post from the period of their 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 workmen and the said action on the part of management amounts to unfair labour practice.
10.It is stated that the workmen are entitled to the pay of post of Driver but the same is denied to them whereas, their other counter parts who are working as Driver are being paid for the said post and said action on the part of the management Award 4 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
amounts to unfair labour practice and is also violative of Article 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India.
11.It is stated that employing person of regular and permanent nature of job and treating them as monthly paid / muster roll worker and paying them lesser remuneration then those doing the identical work and the work of same value amounts to unfair labour practice as provided under the Industrial Dispute Act.
12.It is stated that the workmen are discharging the duties of Driver since their initial date of joining till date and hence same is a permanent nature of job. It is stated that during the year 1998 to 09.09.2008 the management was paying a meager consolidated salary to the workmen and basically they are entitled to salary in regular pay scale of Driver for the aforesaid period because the job of Driver is of a permanent nature of job which is still continuing with the management and the workmen are discharging the duties of Driver only continuously till date.
13.It is stated that the management adopted a regularization policy, as per which the daily wager employees are automatically regularized after completing 720 days of their continuous employment and in this regard a demand notice dated 23.02.2013 was served upon the management by Award 5 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
registered post vide communication seeking their regularization but to no avail. It is prayed that an Award be passed in favour of workmen regularizing their service on the post of Driver with retrospective effect from their respective initial date of joining with all benefits. Cost of litigation has also been prayed for.
Written Statement
14.In the written statement, it is stated that DJB engaged Vehicle Drivers on contract basis in the year 1998-99 on fixed consolidated wages of Rs. 3500/- per month initially for a period of 6 months in the exigencies of work. As per terms & conditions for offer of Appointment on contract basis as Vehicle Driver "it shall not confer any right/claim for regular employment in the Board and the said deployment on contract basis can be cancelled / withdrawn at any time without assigning any reason". However, with break, further their contracts were renewed from time to time and wages increased to Rs.4000/- per month.
15.It is stated that the Unions representing employees insisted to regularize the services of such contractual vehicle drivers. Both the parties i.e. officials of DJB and office bearers of the Unions discussed the matter in meetings and amicably worked out a settlement to give relief to these contractual vehicle drivers and as per settlement DJB vide its resolution no.1710 dated 09.09.2008 approved status of contractual vehicle Award 6 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
drivers of DJB notionally on muster roll w.e.f. the dates of their initial engagement on contract and subsequently regularize them as Beldar as per existing policy of DJB but notionally from the dates their counterpart juniors regularized. This settlement was done subject to policy/settlement with concerned labour unions and its registration with conciliation officer, Labour department, GNCTD.
16.It is stated that the terms and condition of settlement to give relief to the contract vehicle drivers were framed and signed by both the parties and submitted before the Labour Commissioner. As per condition no.(iv) all the drivers engaged on contract basis in the year 1998-99 shall neither claim their regularization on the post of vehicle driver from their initial date of engagement not they will claim any monetary benefits such as pay of regularized vehicle driver or any other allowances from the initial date of engagement till they are regularized as Beldar. It is stated that in these facts, the statement of claim of workmen to regularize their services as Vehicle driver from the date of engagement is wrong and same is liable to be rejected out-rightly.
17.It is submitted that management adopted a regularization policy and as per the policy of regularization "those who have been engaged in between a particular block year (a block comprises of two years) and who have completed 720 days Award 7 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
muster roll attendance in four years starting from first day of block year of two years and last day of fourth calendar year, only are considered for regularization" and as per the said policy, thousand of muster roll workers have come under the said policy and have been regularized in services in the phased manner. It is stated that in these facts, the demand of workmen can not be considered to regularize them w.e.f. the date of initial engagement.
Issues
18.On 27.03.2019, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
(1) As per terms of reference?
(2) Relief Workman's Evidence
19. Workman Satya Narain is examined as WW1. He tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.WW1/A. WW1 deposed on the lines of his claim and proved following documents. Copy of demand notice dated 23.02.2013 as Ex. WW1/1. Copy of Postal Receipt as Ex. WW1/2.
Copy of Acknowledgment Card as Ex. WW1/3. Copy of statement of claim filed by workmen, reply of management and rejoinder of workmen filed before the Conciliation Officer as Ex. WW1/4., 6 & 7 Award 8 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
Copy of Espousal in meeting dated 09.02.2013 as Ex.WW1/5. Copy of Identity Card of workman as Ex. WW1/8. Copy of letter dated 05.10.1999 issued by the Management as Ex. WW1/9.
Copy of letter dated 18.10.1999 issued by the Management as Ex. WW1/10.
Copy of Interview letter issued by the Management as Ex.WW1/11.
Copy of Appointment letter dated 08.11.1999 issued by the Management as Ex.WW1/12.
Copy of Office Orders as Ex.WW1/13 to Ex.WW1/20. Copy of Driver Training Letter as Ex.WW1/21. Copy of Training details as Ex.WW1/22. Copy of Office order dated 30.09.2008 as Ex.WW1/23. Copy of Attendance certificate as Ex.WW1/24. Copy of Office orders as Ex.WW1/25 to 31. Copy of circular dated 07.09.2011 as Ex.WW1/32.
20.WW2 Dinesh Kumar tendered his evidence by way on affidavit as Ex.WW2/A and relied upon the following documents:
Copy of Trade Test/ Interview Letter as Ex.WW2/1. Copy of Appointment Letter dated 11.09.1998 as Ex.WW2/2. Copy of Office orders as Ex.WW2/3 to Ex.WW2/6. Copy of Attendance certificate as Ex.WW2/7. Copy of Office orders as Ex.WW2/8 &9.
Award 9 of 20
POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
Management's Evidence
21. Management examined MW1 Yash Pal Gera, Assistant Commissioner, DJB. He tendered his evidence by way on affidavit as Ex MW1/A and relied upon the documents as Ex.MW1/1 to Ex MW1/5. Cross-examination of MW1 reads as under:
It is correct that the workmen Satya Narain joined on 15.11.1999 and Dinesh Kumar joined on 16.09.1998 as drivers. (Vol. on contract basis). It is correct that they were paid consolidated salary of Rs. 3500/- per month initially. Later on the salary was increased to Rs. 4000/- per month.
Q. I put it to you that there was a newspaper advertisement regarding the vacancies, the names of the workmen herein were sent by the employment exchange, selection committee conducted trade test and thereafter the workmen were appointed?
A. There is no such record with the management.
It is incorrect that I am deposing falsely in this regard and the management has all these records. Ex. WW1/9 to Ex.WW1/32 and Ex. WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/9 are documents issued by Delhi Jal Board. It is correct that both the workmen are still working with the management as heavy vehicle drivers. It is correct that services of both the workmen were regularized in the year 2009 as beldars. It is correct that beldar is a Group D Post whereas the driver is a Group C Post. It is correct that beldars are paid less salary as compared to drivers. Beldars are given Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- but I can tell the Grade Pay of drivers after checking the same.
Award 10 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
It is correct that both the workers have been working as heavy vehicle drivers since their initial joining in 1998 and 1999 respectively till date. It is correct that nature of work and working hours of regular heavy vehicle drivers are the same. It is correct that the regular heavy vehicle drivers are paid the salary of a driver and not that of a beldar. It is incorrect that both the workmen are entitled to the salary and pay scale of regular heavy vehicle driver on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work. It is correct that since 1998-99 there have been many vacant posts of regular heavy vehicle drivers.
I have not seen any legal demand notice given by any of the 6 unions in Ex.MW1/1 to the management for regularization of heavy vehicle drivers as beldars. I have not seen any claim filed by any of these 6 unions before the Conciliation Officer seeing regularization of heavy vehicle drivers as beldars. The management does not have any record about the membership of these 6 unions or whether they are registered or not. The management does not have any record that the heavy vehicle drivers have authorized any of these 6 unions for negotiating on their behalf. It is incorrect that all these 6 unions mentioned in Ex.MW1/1 are bogus unions and the settlement was entered into by these unions at the instance of the management. I cannot say whether Ex.MW1/1 was executed at the Headquarter of the management and not before any Conciliation Officer.
It is correct that the management has a phased manner regularization policy for its Group C and Group D employees. It is incorrect that as per the policy, an employee in Group C is regularized against a Group C post only and similarly a Group D employee is regularized Award 11 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
against a Group D post only. The employees who joined in the year 1998-99 were started being regularized after approximately 4 years. They were paid financial benefits of regularization after approximately 4 years.
It is correct that the work of heavy vehicle driver is of perennial nature with the management. It is wrong to suggest that the management has indulged in unfair labour practice by entering into a bogus settlement with bogus unions. It is incorrect to suggest that the terms of settlement are worse than that of the regularization policy. It is incorrect to suggest that the management indulged in unfair labour practice by continuing the workmen as temporary/contractual for years with an object to deprive the workmen of salary and status of permanent employees.
22.MW2 Om Prakash Saini, Deputy Director of the management tendered his evidence by way on affidavit as Ex MW2/1 and relied upon the documents as Ex.MW2/2 to Ex MW2/6. Cross-examination of MW1 reads as under:
I have joined DJB on 21.08.2024. I do not have any personal knowledge of the case and I have just gone through the case file. I have brought the original letters. None of the documents which have been relied upon by me were executed in my presence. It is correct that I am not the author of Ex.MW2/1 to Ex.MW2/6. I have not produced any document in respect of registration of the Trade Unions. In my knowledge there are about 7-8 registered Trade Unions of DJB. I do not have any document to show that the claimants are members of the unions who have issued the letters Ex.MW2/2 to Ex.MW2/6. It is incorrect to suggest that Award 12 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
documents Ex.MW2/2 to Ex.MW2/6 are false and fabricated.
23.Final arguments have been heard at length. I have gone through the documents, pleadings as well as arguments of parties.
Analysis and Discussion Issue No.1: As per terms of reference.
24.In "Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 ", Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against Award 13 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades."
25. In above noted authoritative decision, Hon'ble Apex 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.
26.Workmen Satya Narain and Dinesh were called for their Interview/ Trade Test vide letters Ex.WW1/11 & Ex.WW2/1 respectively and after due selection process both the workmen were engaged by the management vide their appointment letters Ex.WW1/12 and Ex.WW2/3. Appointment letter of the workmen establishes that workmen were selected after due process as vehicle drivers.
27.MW1 Yash Pal Gera, Assistant Commissioner of the management during his cross-examination admitted that both the workmen are still working with the management as heavy vehicle drivers and their services were regularized in 2009 as beldars.
28.It is argued on behalf of management that the General Secretary of the Jal Mal Kaamgar Sangharsh Morcha Union affiliated to Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress approached the management to regularize the contract drivers on the post of Award 14 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
Beldars and thereafter the contract drivers were regularized on the post of beldars and an assurance was given by the Union that no complaint shall be made in Court of Law after regularization of contract Drivers on the post of beldars and in view of the said assurance, workman are estopped from agitating the issue of regularization on the post of Driver.
29.In this regard MW2 O.P. Saini Deputy Director of Management deposed that he does not have any document to show that workman were the members of the Union which issued letters Ex. MW2/2 to Ex. MW2/6 i.e. the letters written by the said Unions and the assurance given by them.
30.MW1 Yash Pal Gera also deposed that management has no record to establish that the heavy vehicle drivers authorized any of the Union to negotiate on behalf of the workmen. Workmen categorically stated that they were not members of Jal Mal Kaamgar Sangharsh Morcha or Delhi Jal Mal Karamchari Sangh or Municipal Workers Lal Jhanda Union or Delhi Jal Board Karamchari Sangathan or Water Sewer and Sewage Disposal Employee Union or Akhil Bhartiya Safai Mazdoor Congress.
31.Thus, the management has failed to prove that the workmen were members of aforesaid Union or at any point of time they accepted the proposal for their regularization at the post of Award 15 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
Beldars. Thus, this argument of the management is not tenable. Even otherwise also, if at all, it is presumed that the workmen "consented" to their regularization on the post of Beldar w.e.f. 18.05.2009, that also does not give the license to the management to indulge in unfair labour practices by utilizing the service of the workmen as vehicle drivers but regularizing them only on the post of Beldar.
32.In present case, it stands established that the management assigned workman duties of Vehicle Driver and the workmen performed the work assigned to them to the satisfaction of management. In such a scenario, it is not open to the management to question its own action.
33.Management in its wisdom and after due selection process, assigned workmen the work of driver and after taking work from the workmen of that post, management cannot be allowed to back-track and deny the workmen status and salary equal to a regular vehicle driver which a driver gets while performing the similar job/ functions, otherwise that would 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) Workmen have rendered continuous and uninterrupted service for almost 26 years.
Award 16 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
b) They have rendered continuous and uninterrupted service since 1999 and they are performing the permanent and perennial nature of work as a Driver.
c) Workmen were selected after clearing a Trade Test/Interview and they have requisite skill for the job.
d) Management witness admits that since 1998-99 there are many vacant post of heavy vehicle drivers.
35.Management has failed to bring on record any policy specifically pertaining to regularization of safai karamchari and even 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.
36. 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.
37.In industrial adjudications, where the employer has kept the permanent posts unfilled and indulged in the unfair labour Award 17 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
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.
38.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, 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.
39. 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 Award 18 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
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."
40.Workmen gave sustained contribution to the management.
There is no adverse remark against them. In view of undisputed service of the workmen and their perennial nature of duty coupled with vacancies of Driver and as held in above authoritative judgments, the service of the workmen are entitled to be regularized on the post of Driver from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise.
41.As far as the question of equal pay for equal work is concerned, since the workmen is performing the same work as being performed by their regular counterparts and there was no change in their work, working hours, roles, and responsibilities both pre and post-regularization, it is held that they are entitled to the difference in wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Hence, the terms of reference/the Award 19 of 20 POIT No: 386/2016 "Shri Satya Narayan & Anr .Vs DJB"
issues no. 1 is answered in favor of the workmen and against the management.
Relief
42.In view of the above findings, it is held that the workmen Satya Narayan S/o Sh. Ram Singh and Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagwan Asray are entitled to regularization in service on the post of vehicle driver w.e.f. 15.11.1999 and 16.09.1998 respectively in the regular pay scale on the post of Driver with all consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise. They are also be entitled to the difference in wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Arrears accured to the workmen be paid to them by the managements with interest @ 6% p.a. till the date of payment.
Management shall implement the award within 30 days of the the publication failing which the management. The award is passed accordingly.
Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication within 15 days of the receipt of Award. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 18th November 2025.
Digitally
signed by
GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN
GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER,
MANAN Date:
2025.11.18
15:51:48
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
+0530 ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Award 20 of 20