Delhi District Court
Field Workers vs Ndmc on 16 October, 2025
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
POIT No. 584/2019
CNR No. DLCT13-007318-2019
Field Workers
Malaria Department, NDMC,
Ward No. 73, C.F.W. Swarn Park,
Keshav Puram Zone, Delhi
As represented by
General Secretary,
Municipal Employees Union,
Agarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi-110 054 ..... Workman
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
through Its Commissioner North
Dr. S. P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre,
J. L. Nehru Marg,
New Delhi-110002. .... Management
Date of Institution 20.11.2019
Order reserved on 23.09.2025
Date of Award 16.10.2025
AWARD
1. Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of
Delhi has referred this dispute vide
F.24/(208)/19/Ref./CD/Lab./917 dated 23.08.2019 for
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
adjudication with following terms of the reference: GAUTAM MANAN
Date:
MANAN 2025.10.16
20:07:21
+0530
Award 1 of 21
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
"Whether the union represented through General
Secretary is entitled to espouse and to raise the
Industrial Dispute for the workmen (Field
Workers) without submitting the details of all
the concerned workers for their General
Demands and if so, whether demand of the
workmen for regularization of their services on
the post of Field Workers with retrospective
effect from their respective initial date of joining
into employment and to pay them entire
difference of salary on the principal of 'Equal
Pay for Equal Work' alongwith all consequential
benefits thereof either monetary or otherwise is
legal and justified and if so, what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
Statement of Claim
2. The present claim has been filed on behalf of following
workmen:
S.No. Name & Parentage Date of Posting (in Delhi)
Appointment
1. Virjeet Prasad S/o Sh. 08.08.2013 C.F.W, Ward No. 73,
Janardan Prasad Swarn Park, Keshav
Puram Zone.
2. Naveen Kumar S/o 08.08.2013 C.F.W, Ward No. 76,
Sh. Kiranpal Singh Sangam Park, Keshav
Puram Zone.
3. Karambir Singh S/o 08.08.2013 C.F.W, Ward No. 73,
Sh. Om Prakash Swarn Park, Keshav
Puram Zone.
4. Premdhari 08.08.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.64,
Prasad S/o Sh. Par Pitampura, Keshav
Khan Prasad Puram Zone.
5. Devender 08.08.2013 C.F.W, Ward No. 69,
S/o Sh. Kamal Kant Shakurpur, Keshav
Puram Zone.
6. Bijender 08.08.2013 C.F.W, Ward No. 71, Digitally
signed by
S/o Sh. Ram Chander Tri Nagar, Keshav GAUTAM
GAUTAM
MANAN
Puram Zone. MANAN Date:
2025.10.16
20:07:37
+0530
Award 2 of 21
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
7. Krishan Lal Sharma 07.08.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.17,
S/o Sh. Banwari Lal Adarsh Nagar, Civil
Sharma Lines Zone.
8. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. 07.08.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.13,
Ramesh Chand Ghanta Ghar, Civil
Lines Zone.
9. Atul Saini 27.08.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.94,
S/o Sh. Pradeep Saini Dev Nagar, Karol
Bagh Zone.
10. Sumit Kumar S/o Sh. 27.08.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.94,
Raj Kumar Dev Nagar, Karol
Bagh Zone.
11. Dinesh Chand S/o Sh. 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.60,
Mohan Chand Tiwari Rohini, Rohini Zone.
12. Amit Kumar S/o Sh. 13.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.40,
Vishnu Dutt Nithari, Rohini Zone.
13. Vipin Mann S/o Sh. 13.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.41,
Joginder Singh Kirari, Rohini Zone.
14. Sumit Kumar S/o Sh. 13.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.58,
Karanvir Singh Rohini, Rohini Zone.
15. Mohit Saini S/o Sh. 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.60,
Surender Singh Rohini, Rohini Zone.
16. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. 13.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.41,
Ram Niwas Amar Vihar, Rohini
Zone.
17. Vikas Kumar S/o Sh. 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.28,
Shyam Lal Rithala, Rohini Zone.
18. Parveen S/o Sh. 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.57,
Suresh Chand Rohini, Rohini Zone.
19. Amit Kumar Khobba 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.3,
S/o Sh. Virender Alipur, Narela Zone.
Singh Khobba
20. Pradeep Kumar Khatri 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.4,
S/o Sh. Prem Chand Holambi Kalan,
Narela Zone.
21. Kishan Kumar S/ o 18.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.31,
Sh. Rajbir Singh Pooth Khurd, Narela Digitally
Zone. signed by
GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
22. Pushpender Kumar 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.3, MANAN Date:
2025.10.16
20:07:43
+0530
Award 3 of 21
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
Mishra S/o Sh. DN Alipur, Narela Zone.
Mishra
23. Sumit Kumar Sharma 14.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.3,
S/o Sh. Narender Alipur, Narela Zone.
Singh
24. Mandeep S/o Sh. Ajit 13.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.3,
Kumar Alipur, Narela Zone.
25. Kapil Dev S/o Sh. 11.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.47,
Suraj Bhan Sultanpuri, Rohini
Zone.
26. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.35,
Mann Singh Pooth Khurd, Narela
Zone.
27. Sagar Bhardwaj S/o 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.1,
Sh. Ram Chander Narela, Narela Zone.
28. Sandeep S/o Sh. 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.5,
Balwan Singh Bankner, Narela
Zone.
29. Vikas S/o Sh. Ranbir 11.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.3,
Singh Alipur, Narela Zone.
30. Ram Gopal Yadav S/o 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.1,
Sh. Doman Yadav Narela, Narela Zone.
31. Anish Ahmed S/o Sh. 11.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.1,
Rashid Ahmed Narela, Narela Zone.
32. Amit S/o Sh. Virender 11.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.30,
Bawana, Narela Zone.
33. Amit S/o Sh. 11.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.30,
Rameshwar Bawana, Narela Zone.
34. Vikas S/o Sh. Virender 16.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.1,
Kumar Narela, Narela Zone.
35. Deepak S/o Sh. Bal 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.5,
Kishan Bankner, Narela
Zone.
36. Gobind S/o Sh. 14.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.5,
Shyam Lal Bankner, Narela
Zone.
37. Pradeep Kumar S/o 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.36, Digitally
Sh. Ram Karan Rani Kheda, Narela GAUTAM
signed by
GAUTAM
MANAN
Zone. MANAN Date:
2025.10.16
20:07:49
Award 4 of 21 +0530
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
38. Ajit S/o Sh. Ram Phal 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.36,
Rani Kheda, Narela
Zone.
39. Ajveer Singh Rawat 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.36,
S/o Sh. Arvind Singh Rani Kheda, Narela
Rawat Zone.
40. Rimpi S/o Sh. 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.36,
Ramesh Chander Rani Kheda, Narela
Zone.
41. Pankaj Mathur S/o Sh. 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.36,
Satbir Singh Choti Puth, Narela
Zone.
42. Kapil Bhardwaj S/o 13.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.4,
Sh. Daya Kishan Holambi Kalan,
Narela Zone.
43. Krishan S/o Sh. Jai 11.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.30,
Bhagwan Bawana, Narela Zone.
44. Pradeep S/o Sh. 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.35,
Mahabir Singh Kanjhawala, Narela
Zone.
45. Satbir Sehrawat S/o 13.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.35,
Sh. Diwan Singh Kanjhawala, Narela
Zone.
46. Sunder Singh S/o Sh. 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.5,
Rajender Singh Bakner, Narela Zone
47. Randhir Singh S/o Sh. 11.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.1,
Jagdish Narela, Narela Zone.
48. Satish Vats S/o Sh. 14.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.35,
Ram Gopal Vats Kanjhawala, Narela
Zone.
49. Kiran Pal S/o Sh. 13.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.42,
Inder Pal Rohini Zone.
50. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. 26.08.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.42,
Azad Singh Rohini Zone.
51. Naveen Kumar S/o 11.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.4,
Sh. Ram Phool Holambi Kalan,
Narela Zone. Digitally
signed by
52. Sunil Lakra S/o Sh. 11.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.1, GAUTAM
GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN
Sarvan Kumar Narela, Narela Zone. Date:
2025.10.16
20:09:50
+0530
Award 5 of 21
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
53. Lalit Kumar S/o Shri. 11.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.30,
Bhagwan Bawana, Narela Zone.
54. Pramod Singh S/o Sh. 13.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.35,
Rajender Singh Kanjhawala, Narela
Zone.
55. Sachin Bhardwaj S/o 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.4,
Sh.Krishan Kumar Holambi Kalan,
Narela Zone.
56. Nikhil Kumar S/o Sh. 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.30,
Rambhool Singh Bawana, Narela Zone.
57. Balraj Singh S/o Sh. 12.09.2013 C.F.W, Ward No.4,
Hosiyar Singh Holambi Kalan,
Narela Zone.
3. Workmen have stated that they are working as Field Workers
with the management since 2013 and they were appointed in
the job on contract basis.
4. It is stated that the management had taken their interviews
and their police verification and medical was also conducted
by the management before appointing them.
5. It is stated that workmen were appointed on contract basis
and were paid Rs. 19,000/- per month while their counter-
parts who were doing the identical work of same value were
treated as regular employees and were being paid salary in
proper pay scale and allowance, but it was denied to the
workmen. Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
MANAN
GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.10.16
20:09:57
+0530
Award 6 of 21
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
6. It is stated that the workmen are working against the vacant
sanctioned posts of Field Workers since their induction into
the employment of the management, and they are
continuously discharging their service. Workmen are having
an unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to their
credit and there is no complaint against them regarding their
work and conduct. It is submitted that although workmen are
supposed to be regularized since their respective date of
joining, but the management has not taken any steps to
regularize their service.
7. It is stated that the non-regularization of service of the
workmen since their initial date of joining on the post of Field
Workers in proper pay-scale and allowances and non-payment
of difference of salary on the principle of equal pay for equal
work with all arrears thereof is totally illegal, unjust and
malafide and amounting to unfair labour practice.
8. It is submitted that the job against which the workmen have
been working is of a permanent and regular nature and so
many posts of Field Workers are lying vacant with the
management.
9. It is submitted that employing persons on regular nature of
jobs and treating them as a monthly paid/muster roll workers Digitally
signed by
GAUTAM
GAUTAM
and paying them lesser remuneration than those doing the
MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.10.16
20:10:04
+0530
Award 7 of 21
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
identical work and the work of same value amounts to unfair
labour practice as provided in Section 2(ra) read with Item
no. 10 of Fifth Schedule and read with Section 25 T
punishable under Section 25 U of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947 and the same was clearly held by the Supreme Court of
India in the Matter of "Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. the
Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and Ors" (2005)IILLJ
403SC vide judgment dated 27.03.2015, ONGC Itd Vs.
Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Ors. (2015) IILJ 257SC , vide
judgment dated 17.04.2015. It is stated that unfair treatment
of the workman is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39 (d) of
the Constitution of India and it amounts to sheer exploitation
of labour.
10.It is submitted that the management has not framed under any
rules or regulations nor get it passed by the U.P.S.C. and nor
notified in the official Gazette for governing the service
conditions of the so-called muster roll/part-time seasonal
workers/ contract workers, nor it has any certified Standing
Orders governing service conditions of such workers and,
therefore, Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are applicable to
the workman and the management and its Undertakings.
11.Workmen have submitted that action of the management in Digitally
signed by
GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
employing the workmen as contractual or temporary and to MANAN Date:
2025.10.16
20:10:11
+0530
Award 8 of 21
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
continue them for years together with the object of depriving
them of the status and privileges of permanent workman and
that amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in Section
2 (ra) read with Item No.10 of the 5th Schedule of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
12.It is further stated that work and conduct of the workmen is
satisfactory and there has been no complaint against their
work. It is stated that workmen served a demand notice dated
23.02.2018 on the management seeking their regularization
but to no avail. It is prayed that award be passed in favour of
workmen regularizing them on the post of Field Worker with
retrospective effect from the respective initial date of joining
and to direct the management to pay them difference of salary
on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" from the date
of joining till regularization with all consequential beenfits.
Cost of litigation has also been prayed for.
Written Statement
13. In the written statement, it is stated that there is no policy for
regularization of employees engaged on contract basis in the
management. It is stated that present case is not maintainable
in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Uma Rani vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies (2004) 7 SCC
112 as well as the case titled as Secretary, State of Karnataka
vs. Uma Devi. Other averments made in the statement of Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.10.16
20:10:17 +0530
Award 9 of 21
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
claim have been denied and dismissal of the claim has been
prayed for.
Issues
14.On 01.03.2021, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the
following issues were framed:
(1) As per terms of reference?
(2) Relief
Workman's Evidence
15. Workmen examined workman WW1 Virjeet Prasad on their
behalf and it was consented by rival parties that his evidence
shall be read for other workmen as well. WW1 tendered his
evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.WW1/A. He deposed on
the lines of claim of workmen and proved following
documents:
Copy of demand notice dated 23.02.2018 as Ex. WW-1/1.
Copy of Postal Receipt as Ex. WW-1/2.
Copy of Statement of claim filed by workmen, the written
statement of the management and rejoinder filed before the
Conciliation Officer as Ex. WW-1/3, 8 & 9.
Copy of Espousal Ex. WW-1/4.
Copy of an I card as Ex. WW-1/5.
Copy of Office Order issued by the Management as
Ex.WW-1/6. Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
MANAN
GAUTAM
Copy of joining report of the workman as Ex. WW1/7. MANAN
Date:
2025.10.16
20:10:23
+0530
Award 10 of 21
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
Management's Evidence
16. Management examined MW1 Manju Bojwani, Assistant
Commissioner, Public Health Department of the MCD. She
tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.MW1/A.
Management relied upon a circular in respect of
compassionate appointment of the employees as Ex-I.
Rival Contentions
17.It is argued on behalf of workmen that they were appointed
after going through an open selection process conducted by
the management and he fulfills the criteria of recruitment
rules. It is stated that workmen are working against
sanctioned vacant post and their conduct has always remained
satisfactory. It is submitted that in view of law laid down in
Chief Conservative of Forest and Anr., (1996) 2 SCC 293, Project
Director Dep. Of Rural Development Vs. Workman, 2019 SCC
Online Delhi 7996 and Govt. Of NCT of Delhi Vs. Nisha & Ors.
W.P.(C) No. 15950/2023, management is bound to regularize
the services of workmen w.e.f. date of their initial joining the
service.
18.On the other hand, Ld. AR for the management has argued
that workmen were merely working as contractual labour and
as such, in view of the law laid down in "MCD Vs. Gauri
Shankar & Ors. JT 2004 (6) SC 126 and MCD vs Its Workmen, "
Digitally signed
service of the workman cannot be regularized. GAUTAM MANAN
by GAUTAM
Date:
MANAN 2025.10.16
20:10:34
+0530
Award 11 of 21
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
19.Final arguments have been heard at length as advanced by
both the parties. I have gone through the documents,
pleadings as well as arguments of parties.
Analysis and Discussion
Issue No.1: As per terms of reference.
20. Recently in "Govt. NCT of Delhi through Directorate of Family
Welfare Versus Nisha and Others, LPA 530/2024" 2024 SCC
OnLine Del 5149 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
25. This Court in Project Director (supra), in the
facts and situation before it where the Rajya
Sanik Board had recommended names of
registered ex-servicemen to be appointed as
caretakers of community centres, and pursuant
to their initial appointment on contractual basis
in 1997, had been in uninterrupted service for
almost 22 years, then concluded as under:
"Thus, in the light of the observations of the
Supreme Court in Ajaypal Singh (supra), ONGC
(supra) and Umrala Gram Panchayat (supra) as
also of this Court in Ram Singh (supra), I find
that the petitioner's reliance on the decision of
the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra) and of
this Court in Anil Lamba (supra) is wholly
misconceived. In my opinion, once the Tribunal
was of the view that the petitioner was indulging
in unfair labour practice, it was well within its
domain to pass an order directing the petitioner Digitally
to regularize the respondents" services. The signed by
GAUTAM
petitioner has failed to make out any ground to GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
interfere with the discretion exercised by the 2025.10.16
20:10:40
Industrial Tribunal in directing the petitioners to +0530
Award 12 of 21
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
regularize the services of the
respondents/workmen. There is no gainsaying
that the writ jurisdiction and powers of
superintendence of this Court have to be
exercised only sparingly to ensure that the
subordinate courts do not exceed their own
jurisdiction and exercise it as and when required,
or when there has been a manifest failure of
justice, or when the principles of natural justice
have been flouted. In my opinion, no such
eventuality has occurred in the present case so as
to warrant the exercise of powers of this Court
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution."
26. In view of above, the learned Single Judge
has opined that the relief seeking under the writ
jurisdiction the appellant introduced new aspects
of evidence, which they chose not to lead before
the learned Industrial Tribunal. Notwithstanding,
the only argument is relating to the "temporary
nature of appointment" in a project/mission
under the RHC of these ANMs. It is not
disputed, however, they had been consistently
engaged since 2000-2001 and have spent around
23 to 24 odd years in the same service of
providing midwife care in various hospitals.
27. Though the contractual services cannot be
regularized but in the project the respondents are
continuously working for more than 23-24 years,
they cannot be kept engaged on contractual basis
throughout in service life. This type of practice
amounts to exploiting the poor and needy person
which cannot be accepted.
21. Management has submitted that in Secretary, State of
Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, appeal (civil) 3595-
3612 of 1999, and Uma Rani vs. Registrar Co-operative Society Digitally
signed by
as reported in (2004) 7 SCC 112, it was held that regularization GAUTAM
GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.10.16
20:10:46
+0530
Award 13 of 21
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any State
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India
or any body or authority governed by a statutory Act or the
Rules framed thereunder. Regularization furthermore cannot
give permanence to an employee whose services are ad-hoc
in nature. It was also held that the fact that some persons had
been working for a long time would not mean that they had
acquired a right for regularization.
22. 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 Digitally
judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases GAUTAM
signed by
GAUTAM
MANAN
where regularization is appropriate. This selective MANAN Date:
2025.10.16
application distorts the judgment's spirit and 20:10:59
+0530
Award 14 of 21
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
purpose, effectively weaponizing it against
employees who have rendered indispensable
services over decades."
23.In above noted authoritative decisions, Hon'ble Courts have
observed that the employees who satisfy the stipulated
qualifications for the service and who continue for several
years, or decades, without complaint, against posts which
were sanctioned, have a right to seek regularization, and the
judgment of "Uma Devi" does not affect rights of such
employees. Hence, the reliance of the management on the
judgment of "Uma Devi" (supra) to argue that Tribunal does
not have the power to regularize the services of the workman
concerned is misplaced in law.
24.The employment particulars of the workmen as mentioned in
para 2 above i.e. date of their joining, designation are not
disputed. The question is whether the workmen are entitled
for regularization of their services.
25. During the course of her cross-examination MW1 Manju
Bhojwani deposed as under:
It is correct that the concerned 57 workmen joined
into the employment of management as field
workers from the dates shown in para 1 of the
statement of claim filed before this Court. It is also
correct that the concerned workmen have been
working with the management since 2013 to till Digitally signed
date continuously and uninterruptedly. It is correct
by GAUTAM
MANAN
GAUTAM Date:
that before appointment of these workers, the posts MANAN 2025.10.16
20:11:05
+0530
were advertised in the newspaper and the
Award 15 of 21
POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
concerned workmen alongwith other candidates
applied for the same.
It is also correct that the concerned workmen
fulfills requisite qualifications for the post of field
workers. It is also correct that the management
constituted a selection board. It is also correct that
the concerned workmen were appointed after they
were found most suitable on the post of field
workers. The work and conduct of the workmen
are satisfactory and there is no complaint.
It is correct that the nature of work, working hours
and the responsibilities of the concerned workmen
are same and identical to those who are treated as
regular permanent field workers and are paid their
salary in the regular pay scale.
I do not know if medical examination and police
verification was done before their appointment.
It is correct that Municipal Employees Union is a
registered union for the employees of MCD since
long. I cannot pin point any deficiency in
Ex.WW1/4 i.e. the resolution passed by the union
of the workman i.e. Municipal Employees Union
to raise the present dispute. The documents filed
on behalf of the workmen on the Court record are
issued by the management and the same are
correct and there is no dispute about the
correctness of the same.
It is correct that a large number of posts carrying
the regular pay scale of field workers are lying
vacant with the management. I have not read the
judgment cited in Para 7 and Para 8 of my affidavit
Ex.MW1/A. It is correct that this affidavit has
been prepared with the consultation of my staff
.......
26.Workman have stated that they were appointed after going through a selection process, MW1 during her cross- examination admitted that before appointment of workmen Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.10.16 20:11:18 +0530 Award 16 of 21 POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
the post were advertised and workmen were appointed after they were found most suitable for the post of Field Worker.
27. MW1 has also deposed specifically that workman fulfills requisite qualification for the post of Field Workers and they have been working continuously with the management since 2013. It is evident that the workmen have worked with the management continuously for almost 12 years. Evidence led by management establishes that the workmen were selected after they were selected by the Selection Board and were found suitable for the job.
28.In the present case also the following facts emerge:
a) Workmen have rendered continuous and uninterrupted service for almost 12 years.
b) They are performing the permanent and perennial nature of work as Field Worker.
c) At the time when workmen were appointed, there were vacant posts of Field Workers were available with the management and large number of posts carrying regular pay scale are still lying vacant.
d) Management witness admits that workmen have requisite qualification for the job.
e) There is no material on record which finds that the services of workmen were not found satisfactory or there is any Digitally signed complaint against them. GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.10.16 20:11:32 +0530 Award 17 of 21 POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
29.Management has failed to bring on record any policy specifically pertaining to regularization of Field Workers 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.
30. 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.
31.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 Digitally signed regularization of the workman. GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.10.16 20:11:38 +0530 Award 18 of 21 POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
32.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.
33. Recently, in Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr. in Civil Appeal no. 8558 of 2018, vide judgment dated 19.08.2005 the Hon'ble Apex Court regularized the services of the workmen and has categorically held that :
"18.Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what Digitally signed by GAUTAM alternatives were considered, why similarly GAUTAM MANAN Date:
placed workers were treated differently, and MANAN 2025.10.16 20:11:43 how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, +0530 Award 19 of 21 POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
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."
34.Workmen have given sustained contribution to the management. There is no adverse remark against them. During the course of the arguments, it has been pointed out that the Field Workers are now designated as MTS (Public Health) and their nature of work remains the same. In view of undisputed service of the workmen and their perennial nature of duty coupled with vacancies of Field Worker/MTS and as held in above authoritative judgments, the service of the workmen is entitled to be regularized on the post of Field Worker from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise.
35.As far as the question of equal pay for equal work is concerned, since the workmen are performing the same work as being performed by her 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 issue no. 3 is answered in favor of the workmen and against Digitally signed the management. GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.10.16 20:11:50 +0530 Award 20 of 21 POIT No: 584/2019 "Field Workers Vs NDMC"
Relief
36.In view of the above findings, it is held that the workmen as mentioned in para 2 above, are entitled to regularization in service on the post of Field Worker/MTS (Public Health) w.e.f. date of their initial appointment in the regular pay scale with all consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise. They are also entitled to the difference in wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work w.e.f date of their initial joining. The arrears shall be paid to the workman with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accrual till realization.
Management shall implement the award within 30 days of the the publication. The award is passed accordingly. Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication with immediate effect and the appropriate Government shall published the Award within 07 days of the receipt of the order.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 16th October 2025. Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.10.16
20:11:57
+0530
GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Award 21 of 21