Delhi District Court
Ram Singh vs Ndmc on 30 October, 2025
POIT No. 746/2016 "Ram Singh 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. 746/2016
CNR No. DLCT13-000208-2016
Sh. Ram Singh
S/o Sh. Ishwari Prasad,
House No. 5541, Strret No. 4-5,
Chandrawal, Kamla Nagar,
Delhi-110007.
As represented by
Municipal Employees Union
Agarwal Bhawan, G. T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi - 110054 ..... Workman
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
hrough Its Commissioner North
Dr. S. P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre,
J. L. Nehru Marg,
New Delhi-110002. .... Management
Date of institution 06.01.2016
Order reserved on 24.09.2025
Date of Award 30.10.2025
AWARD
1.Dy. Labour Commissioner, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal vide notification No. F.24(02)/CD/16/Lab/08 dated 01.01.2016 with following terms of the reference:
Award Page 1 of 12POIT No. 746/2016 "Ram Singh Vs NDMC"
"Whether the demand of the workman Sh. Ram Singh S/o Sh. Ishwari Prasad for regularization of his services on the post of Garden Chaudhary with retrospective effect i.e. from December, 2005 along with entire difference of salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work for the paid from December 2005 onwards alongwith all arrears thereof, is legal and justified; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what direction are necessary in this respect?"
Statement of Claim
2. It is the claim of workman that he was employed by the management as Maali and his service was regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1989. It is stated that workman was allotted the work of Garden Chaudhary w.e.f. December, 2005 and since then he is performing the duty of Garden Chaudhary.
3. It is stated that workman should have been regularized on the post of Garden Chaudhary but no action was taken by the management in this regard. It is submitted that the post of Mali is much lower than the post of Garden Chaudhary. Further more, the post of Garden Chaudhary carries much higher pay scale than the post of Mali. In fact, the management should have regularized his services on the post of Garden Chaudhary but no action was taken.
Award Page 2 of 12POIT No. 746/2016 "Ram Singh Vs NDMC"
4. Workman has stated that non-regularization of service of the workman on the post of Garden Chaudhary since December, 2005 (i.e. the day since when the workman concerned is discharging the services as Garden Chaudhary) in proper pay scale and allowances and denial of difference of salary in the post of Mali and that of Garden Chaudhary is illegal, bad, unjust and malafide.
5. Workman stated that a demand notice was served upon the management by registered post vide communication dated 12.05.2015 which has been duly received in office of management, 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. Hence, in his claim has sought the regularization at the post of Garden Chaudhary w.e.f. December 2015.
Written statement
6. Management in its written statement stated Delhi Municipal Employee's Union, has no locus standi to raise the present dispute. It is submitted that the aforesaid Union is not a recognized Union by the management and as such the present dispute is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Award Page 3 of 12POIT No. 746/2016 "Ram Singh Vs NDMC"
7. It is stated that workman did not file any document with the present dispute to show that he was assigned the duties of a Garden Chowdhary w.e.f. December, 2005, even the workman has not filed office order of any issued in the management of the favour workman regarding assignment of the duties as a Garden Chowdhary.
8. It is stated that management has of its own policy in the phase regularization i.e. Manner Policy and the workman was regularized in service from 01.04.1989 as 'Mali', hence the present dispute of the workman is not maintainable. Issues
9. On 21.03.2017 on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the present claim of the workman has been properly espoused by the union? OPW
2. As per terms of reference.
3. Relief Workman's Evidence
10. In order to prove his entitlement, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.WW1/A. He deposed on the lines of his claim. Workman proved the following documents:
1. Copy of legal demand notice dated 12.05.2015 as Ex.WW1/1.Award Page 4 of 12
POIT No. 746/2016 "Ram Singh Vs NDMC"
2. Copy of postal receipt as Ex. WW1/2.
3. Copy of statement of claim filed by workman before Conciliation Officer as Ex. WW-1/3.
4. Copy of espousal as Ex WW1/4.
5. Copy of ID Card as Ex. WW1/5.
6. Copy of attendance register from December 2005 to September 2014 as Ex.WW1/6.
11. WW2 Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, Secretary Municipal Employees Union proved copy of sponsorship of the cause of workman vide minutes of Municipal Employees Union as Ex WW1/4.
Management's Evidence
12.Management did not examine any witness.
Analysis and Discussion Issue No.1: Whether the present claim of the workman has been properly espoused by the union? OPW
13. Management has taken an objection that the present dispute is not an industrial dispute as the same is not properly espoused by the union. In order to prove WW2 Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, Secretary Municipal Employees Unionespousal of the cause of the workman by Municipal Employees Union vide resolution dated 27.04.2015 as Ex.WW1/4.
Award Page 5 of 12POIT No. 746/2016 "Ram Singh Vs NDMC"
14. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Omji Srivastava and Ors. vs. P.W.D./C.P.W.D., 2023/DHC/002013 decided on 17.03.2023, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court after relying upon the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.H. Jadhav v. M/s Forbes Gokak Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1089 of 2005, decided on 11.02.2005 has observed that there is no strict format required for a union espousing the cause of the workman, and this can vary and may also include resolutions or other forms of evidence depending on the case to case. Even in the absence of formal resolution, the court relied upon various documents such as statement of claim filed before the conciliation officer, legal demand notice, authorization letters etc. among other documents and held that the cause of the workman have been properly espoused by the Union.
15. Also, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pratap Singh & Anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, WP(C) No. 676/2013 vide order dated 04.02.2013 reversed the findings of the Ld. Labour Court on the issue of espousal by categorizing it as hyper-technical and held that the cause of the workman is properly espoused by the Union.
16. Resolution proved on record as Ex WW1/4 (letter of espousal) leaves no reason to cast doubt on the espousal passed by the Municipal Employees Union for raising an industrial dispute in favour of the workman. As such, the Award Page 6 of 12 POIT No. 746/2016 "Ram Singh Vs NDMC"
issue stands answered in favor of workman and it is held that the cause of the workman is duly espoused by the Union.
Issue No. 2: As per terms of reference.
17. Workman has claimed that he has been working on the post of Garden Chaudhary since December 2005 and this fact is denied by the management. In order to prove his entitlement, workman has proved copy of attendance register of the management from December 2005 to September 2014 as Ex.WW1/6 which establishes that workman was working as Garden Chaudhary since December 2005.
18. Workman has also proved his identity card issued by the management as ExWW1/5. Though the management disputes that the workman did not have requisite qualification to work as Garden Chaudhary, but management did not lead any evidence to show the dis-entitlement of the workman of job.
19. In present case, it stands established that the management assigned workman duties of an Garden Chaudhary and the workman performed the work assigned to her to the satisfaction of management, then it is not open to the management to question its own action. Management in its wisdom assigned workman work of a Garden Chaudhary and after taking work from the workman of that post, Award Page 7 of 12 POIT No. 746/2016 "Ram Singh Vs NDMC"
management cannot be allowed back-track and deny the workman status and salary equal to post of regular Garden Chaudhary which a Garden Chaudhary 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.
20.In the present case also the following facts emerge:
a)Workman has rendered continuous and uninterrupted service since December 2005, and since then he is performing the permanent and perennial nature of work as Garden Chaudhary.
b) Management assigned the work of Garden Chaudhary to the workman and there is nothing on record to indicate that he does not have requisite qualification for the job.
c) Attendance record of the workman establishes that he worked as Garden Chaudhary.
21. 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.
Award Page 8 of 12POIT No. 746/2016 "Ram Singh Vs NDMC"
22.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.
23. 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.
24. Recently, in Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr . in Civil Appeal no. 8558 of 2018, vide judgment dated 19.08.2025 Award Page 9 of 12 POIT No. 746/2016 "Ram Singh Vs NDMC"
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."
25. Workman has given sustained contribution to the management. There is no adverse remark against him. In view of undisputed service of the workman and his perennial nature of duty, as held in above authoritative judgments, the service of the workman is entitled to be regularized on the post of Garden Chaudhary from the date when she was assigned the duties of Garden Chaudhary with all consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise.
26. It is a well settled law now that the employees are entitled to the pay scale of higher posts if they are officiating in those posts and performing the associated duties, even if they have Award Page 10 of 12 POIT No. 746/2016 "Ram Singh Vs NDMC"
not been formally appointed or promoted through the established recruitment process. This ensures fairness and adherence to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', recognizing the responsibilities and work actually undertaken by the employee.
27. As the workman is performing the same work as being performed by him regular counterparts and there was no change in his work, working hours, roles, and responsibilities both pre and post-regularization, it is held that he is also entitled to the difference in wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The support may also be drawn in this case from the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & Others W.P. (C) No.7947/2010 " where the similar relief was awarded to the workman therein, by the Central Administrative Tribunal and writ petition filed against the order was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court. Relief
28. In the light of above discussions, it is held that the workman Ram Singh s/o Sh. Ishwari Prasad is entitled to regularization in service on the post of Garden Chaudhary from December 2008 (the date he was assigned the duties of Garden Chaudhary) in the regular pay scale with all consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise. He is also entitled to the difference in wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Award Page 11 of 12POIT No. 746/2016 "Ram Singh Vs NDMC"
It is directed that management shall pay the workman difference of wages to the post of " Garden Chaudhary" from December 2008, as the workman performed the duty and responsibility to the post of "Chaudhary" on the said post.
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. 01.01.2016 till its realization. The award is passed accordingly. Award is passed accordingly. Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 30th October 2025.
Digitally signedby GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN GAUTAM Date: PRESIDING OFFICER, MANAN 2025.10.30 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II 13:53:28 +0530 ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI Award Page 12 of 12