Delhi District Court
Surender Singh & Ors. vs . Engineer-In-Chief Dated 17.01.1986, ... on 26 September, 2007
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SH. I.S. MEHTA:
PRESIDING OFFICER: INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.I:
ROOM NO. 2: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
I.D.NO. 202/06.
BETWEEN
The management of
1.M/s. P.W.D. Through its Superintending Engineer Elect. Coordination Circle C.P.W.D., R.K. Puram, East Block New Delhi
2. M/s. P.W.D. Through its Executive Engineer P.W.D. No. 4, Hauz Khas Police Colony, New Delhi.
AND Its workman Sh. Sher Singh S/o Late Sh. Hukam Singh As represented by All India Central P.W.D. (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.), House No. 4823, Gali No. 13, Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi-42.
Date of Institution :- 13.10.2006.
Date of Reserve for Award :- 25.09.2007.
Date of Passing of Award :- 26.09.2007.
AWARD
Secretary (Labour), Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has
referred this dispute arising between the parties, named above for adjudication vi
notification No.F.24(1674)05/Lab./3412-3416 Dated 10.10.2006 with the followin
term of the reference :-
"Whether Sh. Sher Singh S/o Late Sh. Hukam Singh, Muster Roll Plumber is entitled to be regularised on the post of Plumber in proper pay scale & if so, from which date and what directions are necessary in this respect ?"
-: 2 :-
"Whether the said workman is also entitled to wages as is admissible to his regular counter- parts for his muster roll employment and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect"
1. In support of his claim, the workman has filed his statement of claim stating therein that the workman concerned was appointed as Plumber on t muster 12.08.1986 through roll w.e.f. Employment Exchange after going through the trade test and interview. The workman had put in 240 days of continuous service in each year from the date of initial appointment from 12.08.1986 till date The management had changed the post of workman from Plumber to Assistant Plumber (Lower Category) without giving any notice, which is violation of Section 9-A of the ID Act. The counterparts of the workman who are performing the same nature of job are getting the pay scale of Plumber i.e. Rs.950-1500/ 3050-4590. T workman have made representations to the management to this effect, but no acti has been taken till date.
2. The management has again called the workman for trade test and interview for regularization 12.01.1993 of his services on and the workman passed the trade test and interview. He was sent for medical examination before taking trade test and interview 03.02.1990.
on It is further stated that the workman has
been granted temporary status 01.09.1993
w.e.f. vide letter dated 06.08.1994. The
Director General of Works issued orders in pursuance of the judgment
SURENDER SINGH & ORS. VS. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF Dated 17.01.1986, to regularize the services of all daily rated workmen in the CPWD from the date of initial employment at par with regular workmen of CPWD who have put in Six -: 3 :- Months in continuous service with all allowances and benefits. In view of the orders, the Horticulture Wing of the management of CPWD regularized the services of daily rated workmen by 07.12.1988 whereas, the Electrical and Civi Wings did not take action in this regard and continued to keep the workmen o muster roll for years together which is unfair labour practice under the ID Act. It further stated that as per the Seniority List of Plumber, the name of the workman at serial no.14. The management have issued orders dated 26.07.2006, for payme of gratuity to muster roll/ daily rated period. The difference cannot be made in t pay scale of categorization of the workmen at the time of regularization/ appointment/ promotions. Due to non- regularization of services of the workman time, he could not be given the benefits of higher pay scale under ACP Scheme. The conciliation proceedings were initiated, but resulted into failure due to adaman attitude of the management. It is prayed that an Award may be passed regularizin services of workman concerned w.e.f. 12.08.1986 on the post of Plumber along with other consequential benefits as the regular counterparts are being given. T workman also be held entitled to wages as is admissible to his regular counterparts for his muster roll employment.
3. In the written statement filed by the management, it is stated that the workman was engaged for various plumbing work only for repair and maintenance of staff quarters, workshop and hospital building etc. initially for the period of 3 days. The workman continued to work on a temporary post as a daily wager wit the management. He was granted temporary status in the category of Assistan Plumber w.e.f. 01.09.1993 in the pay scale of Rs. 800-1150. The workman in n way was reverted from the post of Plumber to the post Assistant Plumber and w given a temporary status as Assistant Plumber in pursuance of the -: 4 :- recommendations of th Pay 5 Commission and he is continuous to remain in the status of Assistant Plumber. It is prayed that the workman is not entitled f regularization w.e.f. 12.08.1986 on the post of Plumber and other consequential benefits. Thus, claim of the workmen is baseless and is liable to be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder filed wherein all the contentions raised in the written statement were controverted and those of the statement of claim were reiterated.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed :-
1. Whether the cause of the workman has been properly espoused ? If not, its effect.
2. Whether Sh. Sher Singh S/o Late Sh. HukamMuster Singh,Roll Plumber is entitled to be regularised on the post of Plumber in proper pay scale & if so, from which date and what directions are necessary in this respect ?"
3. Whether the said workman is also entitled to wages as is admissible to his regular counter- parts for his muster roll employment and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect"
4. Relief.
6. The workman have examined himself as WW1 and proved his affidavit Ex.WW1/A and also relied upon the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/15. Mr Satish Kumar- General Secretary of the Union as WW2 who proved his affidavit Ex.WW2/A. On the other hand, the management has examined MW1- Mr. Subhash Chander, who proved his affidavit Ex. MW1/A.
7. I have heard Learned ARs for the parties and have perused the record and my findings are as under :-
-: 5 :-
ISSUE NO. 1.
8. Learned ARM- Mr. Rajesh Tripathi has submitted that the cause of the workman has not properly espoused by the union and he is not the member of union. Thus, the claim be rejected being not properly espoused.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Kumar- General Secretary of the union All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan; stated that the workman concerned is the member of the union since its formation i.e. in the year 1986. M Satish Kumarhas also examined himself as WW2 and proved the resolution dated 03.10.2004, passed by All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangthan. During the cross-examination, the management did not put any suggestion either to WW2 th he is not the General Secretary of the said Union nor has put any suggestion that the cause of the workman was not espoused by his union or that his cause was n properly espoused by the union. Moreover, the reference order dated 10.10.2006, which was referred by the Secretary (Labour) to this Tribunal, mentions that th workman was represented by All India CPWD Karamchari (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd). In view of the above discussion, it is proved that the workman represented by a registered union which has locus standi to file the present statement of claim on behalf of the workman. Accordingly, this issue is decided i favour of the workman and against the management.
ISSUE NO. 2 & 3.
10. Issue no. 2 & 3 are taken together being interconnected.
11. Learned ARM- Mr. Rajesh Tripathi has submitted that the workman was engaged as daily wager for various plumbing works only, initially, for the period o -: 6 :- 30 days on muster roll. The workman was granted temporary status w.e.f 01.09.1993. He has further submitted that in pursuance of the recommendations Pay Commission, the pay scale of Group-D casual labour in the pay scale of Rs 800-1150 was revised to Rs. 2650-4000 and the workman was given the temporary status in the category of Assistant Plumber vide office order dated 03.12.1997. Learned ARM has further submitted that the daily wager are not entitled to hol any particular post and as such, the question of appointing the workman as plum does not arise and it is prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Kumar - General Secretary of the Union has submitted that the workman was appointed as Plumber on muster roll w.e 12.08.1986 for running maintenance works of the residential buildings and offi complexes. The workman was appointed through Employment Exchange and appointed after going through the trade test and interview. The workman was put 240 days of continuous service in each year from the date of initial appointment i 12.08.1986 till date. The workman was again called for trade test and interview f regularization of his services on 12.01.1993 and the workman passed the trade t and interview. Thereafter, the workman was granted temporary status w.e.f 01.09.1993. In view of the orders, the Horticulture Wing of the management of CPWD regularized 07.12.1988 the services of daily rated workmen by whereas, the Electrical and Civil Wings did not take action in this regard and continued to kee the workmen on muster roll for years together which is unfair labour practice und the ID Act. It is prayed that the workman be regularized w.e.f. 12.08.1986 on th post of Plumber along with all consequential benefits.
13. The workman in his claim has specifically stated that he joined the -: 7 :- management on 12.08.1986 as Plumber on muster roll. The workman has furth stated that he was given the temporary status of Assistant Plumber w.e.f 01.09.1993 whereas, his counterparts were regularized w.e.f. 07.12.1988 by th Horticulture Wing of the management, however, the Electrical and Civil Wing have not taken any steps for regularizing the workman, which is unfair labour practice.
14. The management in its written statement does not dispute the workman working with the management. In the written statement, it is admitted that t workman was given temporary status of Assistant Plumber as per rule since 01.09.1993. The management has not replied the averment made in the claim th his counterparts were regularized in the Horticulture Wing of the management since 07.12.1988.
15. The management has examined MW1- Mr. Subhash Chander and during the cross- examination he has admitted that the Assistant Category including Assistant Plumber was merged in full category from 01.01.1973 and the office memorandum to this effect is Ex.WW1/8 is correct. The aforesaid admissions mad by this witness is reproduced as follows :-
"It is correct to suggest that the Assistant Category including Assistant Plumber was merged in full category from 01.01.1973. It is correct to suggest that office memorandum Ex.WW1/8 is correct.
14. He has further admitted that the workman concerned had passed the trad test conducted by the management for the post of Plumber on 15.04.1993 vid Ex.WW1/3. He has further admitted the office memorandum dated 06.08.1994 Ex.WW1/6 and Ex.WW1/M-1. He has further admitted that the workman concerned is entitled for the post of Plumber. The aforesaid admissions are -: 8 :- reproduced as under :-
It is correct to suggest that the workman had passed the trade test conducted by the management for the post of Plumber on 15.04.1993 vide Ex.WW1/3. It is correct to suggest that office memorandum dated 06.08.1994 Ex.WW1/6 and Ex.WW1/M-1 is correct. It is correct to suggest that if there is any vacancy vacant in the department, the workman has right for the regular post of Plumber."
15. In the present case, the management has given the employment to the workman after receiving the name from the Employment Exchange. It has also come on record that similarly placed workman who were workman working under the same management in the different department were regularized w.e.f. 07.12.1988 as admitted by the management witness. Therefore, the workman w also entitled to be placed in the similar position as that of his counterparts we regularized, but, the management till date did not regularize the services of th workman. The issue no. 2 & 3 accordingly decided in favour of the workman.
16. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, discussions made above, and evidence on record, the management is directed to regularize the services of the workman as Plumber under the policy of the management keeping in mind his seniority w.e.f. 12.08.1986 and further directed to make difference of wages from the date his entitlement to be regularized as Plumber. The reference is answered in favour of the workman. Award is passed, accordingly. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON DATED : 26.09.2007.
[ I.S. MEHTA ] -: 9 :- PRESIDING OFFICER:
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI.