Delhi District Court
Sh. Sohan Lal vs Sdmc on 29 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANJUSHA WADHWA:
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
F. No. 24/(112)/ND/173/2011/Lab2382-2385
Dated: 13.12.2012
POIT NO.: 292/2016
Workman:
Sh. Sohan Lal
S/o Sh. Mam Raj
Represented by MCD General Mazdoor Union
C/o Room No. 95, Barrack No. 1/10,
Jam Nagar House, New Delhi-110011
Vs.
The Management of :
The Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road
New Delhi-110002
Date of Institution : 13.02.2013
Date of Arguments : 15.10.2025
Date of Award : 29.10.2025
AWAR D
1.The Labour Department, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi has referred the dispute arising between the parties named above for adjudication to this tribunal with following terms of reference:
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 1/13"Whether Sh. Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Mam Raj is entitled to the status of Mason in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 with effect from 01.04.1982, revised from time to time alongwith all consequential benefits? If so, what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. A statement of claim has been filed on behalf of the workman, wherein it is stated that the workman was initially employed as a Muster Roll Mason w.e.f. 15.05.1978 and that his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1982 on the same post; however, he was granted a lower pay scale applicable to the semi-skilled category, i.e. Rs. 210-290 instead of Rs. 260-400.
3. It is further stated that the Board of Arbitration had revised the pay scale of skilled workers, including Masons, from Rs. 260-350 to Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 01.01.1973 (notionally), and the management had fixed the pay scale of skilled workmen as per the said recommendation, which is reflected in Office Order dated 12.07.1982. However, the said order was not implemented in respect of the present workman.
4. It is further stated that the management issued an Office Order dated 18.10.1988 regularizing the services of the workman as a Mason in the semi- skilled category w.e.f. 01.04.1982 in the pay scale of Rs. 260-350 instead of Rs. 260-400, which was applicable to the skilled category.
5. It is further stated that the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in LPA No. 126/2010 titled "MCD vs. Abid Ali & Ors.", decided on 31.05.2011, held that all workmen in the categories of Mason, Fitter, and Carpenter were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 260-400, revised from time to time.
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 2/136. It is further stated that the management challenged the aforesaid order by filing an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2012. The workman has, therefore, prayed that he may please be granted the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (revised from time to time) w.e.f. 01.04.1982, along with bank interest.
7. A written statement was filed on behalf of the management, raising preliminary objections that the present dispute is not an industrial dispute, that no demand notice was served upon the management prior to the raising of the present dispute, and that the statement of claim is not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches. It is further stated that the workman was regularized as a Mason w.e.f. 01.04.1982, which is a semi-skilled post, and was granted a pay scale of Rs. 210-270 as per recruitment rules, which he accepted without any protest or representation at that time.
8. It is further stated that the claim of the workman for the pay scale of Rs.
260-400 (revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1500) is not justified on the ground that there are two categories of the post of Mason, i.e., Mason and Senior Mason, and that daily-wager Masons engaged on Muster Roll were regularized on the semi-skilled post of Mason in the pay scale of Rs. 210-270 (revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1150) as per the recruitment rules.
9. It is further stated that the workman had initially joined as a daily-wager and was thereafter regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1982 on the semi-skilled post of Mason in the pay scale of Rs. 210-270, (later revised to pay scale of Rs. 800-1150) and therefore, the claim for the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1500) is not justified. It is also stated that the correct date of the office order was 08.11.1989 and not 18.10.1988.
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 3/1310. It is further stated that the management, vide Resolution No. 902 dated 05.03.2007 circulated through Office Order dated 09.05.2007, merged the categories of Junior Mason/Mason and Mason/Senior Mason and granted the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. It is further stated that the workman's pay was also revised accordingly, and he was given the benefit of the ACP scheme after such revision. It is thus prayed that the claim of the workman be dismissed as being devoid of merit.
11. Upon completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed for adjudication vide order dated 13.01.2014 by the learned predecessor of this Tribunal as:-
(1.) Whether present dispute is an Industrial Disputes as defined in Section 2 (k) of Industrial Disputes Act ? OPW (2.) Whether any notice of demand was served upon management, if not, its effect ? OPW (3.) Whether statement of claim is not maintanable on ground of laches/ belated stage ? OPM (4.) As per terms of reference.
12. To prove the case, the workman has examined himself as WW1 and Sh.
B. K. Prasad, President of MCD General Majdoor Union as WW2.
13. On the other side, the management has examined Sh. Hasruddin Khan, Assistant Engineer, South Zone, MCD as MW1. The evidences of the parties shall be considered at the time of deciding the issues. Issue wise findings are as follows :-
Issue No. 1 Whether present dispute is an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2 (K), Industrial Disputes Act? OPW
14. In the instant case, it is notable that systematic activity is being carried out in MCD, which is organized by co-operation of employer-employees POIT-292-2016 Page No. 4/13 for providing the public utility services designed to satisfy human wants or wishes. The operation of municipal services is structured in such a way that can be legally defined as an industry.
15. The word 'Industrial Dispute' has been defined under Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947, which reads as under :-
" 'Industrial Dispute' means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person".
16. It is amply clear from bare reading of the aforesaid definition that individual workman can raise a dispute provided it is connected with terms of employment or with the conditions of service. Further, to be considered as an indudstrial dispute, it must be espoused by a union or significant number of workers, making it distinct from purely individual dispute.
17. Notably, the reference itself shows that the dispute was raised by the union on behalf of the workman. The workman has examined Sh. B.K Prasad, President of MCD General Mazdoor Union as WW2, who has placed reliance upon copy of registration of Union as Ex. WW2/1, Recognition Letter as Ex. WW2/2 and espousal/ sponsorship letter dated 11.06.2011 as Ex. WW2/3.There is no evidence that the union was not a recognized union or that the espousal was bad in law. Once the union takes up the cause of the individual workman and raises the dispute collectively, it becomes an industrial dispute under section 2(k) of POIT-292-2016 Page No. 5/13 Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of workman and against the management.
Issue No. 2 "Whether any notice of demand was served upon the management, if not, its effect?". OPW
18. Onus to prove this issue was on the workman. The management has taken an objection that demand notice has not been served upon management prior to raising of the present dispute and as such reference is bad in law and is liable to be rejected.
19. Ld. AR for the workman contended that there is no requirement of issuance of notice to the management prior to raising of the industrial dispute.
20. It is admitted position that the workman has not served any notice upon the management before raising industrial dispute. During cross examination dated 03.05.2016, Workman stated that though he did not write any letter raising objection regarding lower pay scale but he asked the concerned officers. No suggestion was given to rebut the same. The purpose of legal notice is to communicate the grievance to the management which gives it an opportunity to settle the matter amicably without conciliation. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, non sending of legal notice has not prejudiced the management in any manner whatsoever. Under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, an industrial dispute arises only when a demand is made and refused but form of such demand is not rigidly prescribed. Further, reference made by the Government itself suggests that an industrial dispute existed between the parties. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of workman and against the management.
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 6/13Issue No. 3 "Whether statement of claim is not maintainable on ground of laches/belated stage?" OPM
21. The burden of proving this issue was upon the management. The management has raised an objection that statement of claim is not maintainable on the ground of laches/belated stage. It is submitted that workman as per his own stand was regularized on the post of Mason on 01.04.1982 on the pay scale of Rs. 210-270, which he accepted without any protest and thus raising of the present dispute is time barred.
22. On the other side, Ld. AR for the workman submitted that the non-grant of proper scale of pay to the workman is a continuing wrong and thus fresh cause of action arise every month. He thus submitted that the present claim is not time barred. It is also his contention that fresh cause of action has arisen after passing of the judgment by the Division bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA No.126/2010 titled as MCD Vs. Abid Ali & Others decided on 31.05.2011 whereby it was held that all the workmen in the category of Mason, fitter, carpenter, etc. are entitled to pay scale of skilled category of Rs.260-400 revised from time to time. He further submitted that said judgment of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has attained finality as the SLP filed against the said judgment got dismissed on 13.08.2012.
23. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
24. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman had initially joined as daily-wager and was regularized on the post of Mason in the pay scale of Rs. 210-270 (revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1150) w.e.f. 01.04.1982 vide Office Order dated 08.11.1989 Ex. WW-1/1.
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 7/1325. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others, 1995(5)SCC 628 has held that so long as the employee is in service, a fresh cause of action would arise every month when they are paid their salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to the rules.
26. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Kuldeep Singh Vs. G.M. Instrument Design Development and Facilities Center and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 455, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as:-
"21) In view of the above, law can be summarized that there is no prescribed time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is more so in view of the language used, namely, if any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the appropriate government "at any time" refer the dispute to a Board or Court for enquiry. The reference sought for by the workman cannot be said to be delayed or suffering from a lapse when law does not prescribe any period of limitation for raising a dispute under Section 10 of the Act.
The real test for making a reference is whether at the time of the reference dispute exists or not and when it is made it is presumed that the State Government is satisfied with the ingredients of the provision, hence the Labour Court cannot go behind the reference. It is not open to the Government to go into the merit of the dispute concerned and once it is found that an industrial dispute exists then it is incumbent on the part of the Government to make reference. It cannot itself decide the merit of the dispute and it is for the appropriate Court or Forum to decide the same. The satisfaction of the appropriate authority in the matter of making reference under Section 10(1) of the Act is a subjective satisfaction. Normally, the Government cannot decline to make reference for laches committed by the workman. If adequate reasons are shown, the Government is bound to refer the dispute to the appropriate Court or Forum for adjudication. Even though, there is no limitation prescribed for reference of dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, even so, it is only reasonable that the disputes should be referred as soon as possible after they have arisen and after conciliation proceedings have failed, particularly, when disputes relate to discharge of workman. If sufficient materials are not put forth for the enormous delay, it would POIT-292-2016 Page No. 8/13 certainly be fatal. However, in view of the explanation offered by the workman, in the case on hand, as stated and discussed by us in the earlier paragraphs, we do not think that the delay in the case on hand has been so culpable as to disentitle him any relief. We are also satisfied that in view of the details furnished and the explanation offered, the workman cannot be blamed for the delay and he was all along hoping that one day his grievance would be considered by the Management or by the State Government."
27. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1351, observed as:-
" It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and hot as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. ...."
28. It is evident from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, however, it has to be raised within the reasonable time and there should not be any inordinate delay.
29. In the instant case, in order to deny benefits of skilled category to the workman, the management has taken a plea that there are two categories for the post of Mason i.e. Mason and Senior Mason and for the post of Mason, pay scale as per 3rd CPC was Rs. 210-270 whereas for the post of Senior Mason, the pay scale as per 3rd CPC was Rs. 260-400. It is further plea of the management that daily-wager Mason who were engaged in the muster roll were regularized in the initial post of Mason in the pay POIT-292-2016 Page No. 9/13 scale of Rs. 210-270 (revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1150) and, therefore, claim of the workman for the pay scale of Rs.260-400 (revised Rs.950- 1500) is not justified as per the recruitment rules.
30. Notably, there is nothing on record as to whether such plea of delay and laches was taken by the management before the Conciliation Officer. The fact cannot be overlooked that Hon'ble Apex Court has already decided connected matters in favour of the workman which has attained finality till Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus, there is no delay/laches in filing the present claim. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Issue No.4 - As per terms of reference.
"Whether Sh. Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Mam Raj is entitled to the status of Mason in the pay scale of 260-400 with effect from 01.04.1982, revised from time to time alongwith all consequential benefits? If so, what directions are necessary in this respect?"
31. It is the admitted case of the parties that the workman was initially employed as Muster Roll Mason w.e.f. 15.05.1978 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1982 on the pay scale of Rs. 210-270.
32. It is the case of the workman that he was entitled to the pay scale of skilled category i.e. Rs. 260-400 instead of pay scale of semi-skilled category i.e. Rs. 210-270. On the other hand, the case of the management is that as per recruitment rules, there were two categories of Mason i.e. Mason and Senior Mason and pay scale as per 3rd CPC was Rs. 210-270 for Mason whereas it was Rs. 260-400 for the post of Senior Mason. It is his contention that workman was regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1982 on semi-
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 10/13skilled post of Mason in the pay scale of Rs. 210-270 and, therefore, claim of the workman for pay scale of Rs. 260-400 is not maintainable.
33. The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a common judgment i.e. LPA No.126/2010 titled "MCD Vs. Abid Ali & Ors" has observed as under:
13 "The argument of learned Senior Counsel for the MCD to the effect that the Workmen have not challenged the entry level and promotional level distinctions is obviously fallacious for the reason that the MCD has failed altogether to produce any evidence that such categorisation existed at the relevant time, or was ever implemented".14 "We have already made a mention of Item No. 11
which dealt with the Commissioner''s letter dated 8.1.2007 and has, as Annexure-A, the letter of the Commissioner dated 12.7.1982 which fails to make any distinction between the so-called entry level and promotional level in the category of Masons/Carpenters/Painters/Fitters. This belies the existence of two separate categories sought to be introduced by the MCD much later on as a defence to the demands of the Workmen. In Item No. 11, after referring to the two said alleged categories of senior and junior, it has specifically been noted that - "So far, various such awards have already been implemented under advice of CLO and some of the awards are (sic.) have also created a disparity on pay scales of workers of the "Junior"
Category itself. Under the circumstances, it will be in the interest of MCD, that the existing "Senior" and "Junior" grades of the aforesaid five "Skilled" categories of the Engineering Department are merged into one grade". Keeping in perspective that the so-called senior and junior grades were not implemented for twenty three previous years, reliance by the MCD on the letter dated 09.05.2007 can be of no substance."
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 11/1334. The Division Bench disposed of all the appeals and writ petitions alongwith pending applications thereby directing "the MCD to treat the workman/Employees as having been regularized in the pay scale of Rs.260-400/- with effect from 01.04.1980. In other words, they will be entitled to arrears of pay and other benefits for the period 01.04.1980 to 01.01.1996 if they were recruited by them. As we have already noted, the MCD has already granted all the benefits to the workman/employees with effect from 01.01.1996."
35. The aforesaid judgment attained finality as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 13.08.2012, dismissed all the special leave petitions filed by the management thereby observing that 'no ground is made out for our interference with the impugned judgment.' The decision/observation of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the LPA No.126/2010 titled "MCD Vs. Abid Ali & Ors" remained upheld/intact. The management has failed to produce documentary evidence such as pay fixation orders, or job classification proving that post of mason regularized in 1982 corresponded to a semi-skilled category. There is no stipulation as to about the difference of work in two categories of mason i.e. mason and Senior Mason. It is also not in dispute that the workman was not performing duties as would be ordinarily performed by the mason.
36. In view of the above findings and the settled legal position, it is held that the workman is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 01.04.1982, revised from time to time, along with all consequential benefits, monetary or otherwise, together with interest @ 8% per annum from 13.12.2012 till the date of actual payment.
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 12/1337. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication as per rules. The file be consigned to the Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
Announced in open Tribunal 29.10.2025 Digitally signed Manjusha by Manjusha Wadhwa Wadhwa Date: 2025.10.29 16:46:29 +0530 (MANJUSHA WADHWA) Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-I/ Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi.
POIT-292-2016 Page No. 13/13