Delhi District Court
Workmen vs Edmc on 13 May, 2025
MORE THAN ELEVEN YEARS OLD CASE
IN THE COURT OF SH. MOHINDER VIRAT:
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
F. No. 24(97)/59/ND/2008/Lab./1101
Dated: 01.07.2013
DLCT13-001730-2019
POIT NO. : 656/2016
OLD ID No. : 139/13
Workmen:
Its WORKMEN as represented by
MCD General Mazdoor Union
C/o Room No.95, Barrack No., 1/10,
Jam Nagar House, New Delhi-11
Vs.
The Management of:
(1) The Commissioner (East) East Delhi Municipal
Corporation Udyog Sadan, Near Patparganj Shahadara,
Delhi
(2) The Commissioner (North) North Delhi Municipal
Corporation 4th Floor, Civic Centre, JNL Marg Minto
Road New Delhi-110 002
(3) The Commissioner (South) South Delhi Municipal
Corporation 9th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road New
Delhi-110 002
Date of Filing : 22.03.2019
Date of Arguments : 13.05.2025
Date of Award : 13.05.2025
AWAR D
1. The Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital
Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute arising between
POIT -656-16 Page No. 1/20
the parties named above for adjudication to this Tribunal
with following terms of the reference:-
"Whether Chowkidar/Security Guards transferred
from DDA and also recruited directly by the
management are entitled to 1st ACP in the pay scale
of Rs. 3050-4590/-and IInd ACP in the pay scale of
Rs. 4500-7000/- after completion of 12 and 24 years
of service respectively with all consequential
benefits and if so what directions are necessary in
this regard?"
2. Statement of claim has been filed on behalf of workmen
wherein it is claimed that the MCD General Mazdoor
Union has raised the Industrial Dispute for grant the 1 st &
2nd ACP against the Management/Municipal Corporation
of Delhi (MCD) as they were granted lower pay scale of
Rs. 2600-4000 instead of Rs. Rs. 3050-4590 in 1 st ACP
and Rs. 2750-4400 instead of Rs. 4500-7000 in 2 nd ACP
after completion of 12 & 24 years respectively with all
consequential benefits including the Grade pay etc. It is
further submitted that the Chowkidars working in DDA
were granted the 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590
w.e.f. 9-8-1999, after completion of 12 years of services
and 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000, after
completion of 12 years of service and hence, the
Chowkidars/Security Guards transferred from DDA are
legally entitled for the aforesaid pay scales.
It is further submitted that the Chowkidars/Security
Guards employed by the MCD directly are also entitled for
the same pay scale as they are entitled to be promoted in
POIT -656-16 Page No. 2/20
the category of Choudhary (Garden Supervisor) and the
associated pay scale. It is further submitted that the
Chowkidars/Security Guards transferred from DDA to
M.C.D. have been denied the higher pay scale of Rs. 3050-
4590 in 1st A.C.P. after completion of 12 years and
similarly pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 in 2 nd A.C.P. after
completion of 24 years of service, which is also against the
settlement arrived at between the Management of DDA
and the Management of M.C.D that the service condition
be remained unchanged even after the transfer of the
workmen from DDA to MCD. It is further submitted that
the workmen sent a demand notice dated 24.11.2006 to the
management.
It is further submitted that non-grant of the 1 st & 2nd
A.C.P. in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 and Rs. 4500-
7000 after completion of 12 & 24 years respectively in the
category of Chowkidar/Security Guard is discriminatory
treatment to the Chowkidar/Security Guard, who were
transferred from D.D.A. to M.C.D as the said category in
the DDA are entitled to be promoted as Head Security
Guard in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- and also as
Assistant Security officer in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-
7000/- so they are lawfully entitled for the 1 st & 2nd A.C.P.
after completion of 12 & 24 years respectively of their
services.
It is further submitted that the Chowkidar/Security
Guards who were retained in the DDA Junior to the
workmen connected with the dispute have also been
POIT -656-16 Page No. 3/20
allowed the 1st & 2nd A.C.P, after completion of 12 & 24
years of their services respectively in the pay scale of Rs.
3050-4590/- and Rs. 4500-7000 respectively so the
Chowkidars/Security Guards transferred from DDA to
MCD are also entitled for the same being case of parity. It
is matter of record that all the workmen in the category of
Chowkidar/Security Guard were absorbed through transfer
from DDA.
It is further submitted that the Chowkidar/Security
Guard directly recruited by MCD have been granted 1st
ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- and they are also
entitled for 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000
which has already been granted by the Hon'ble CAT vide
order dated 18th November 2009 in TA No. 931/2009 and
TA No. 933/2009 titled Virender Singh & 49 others Vs.
MCD and also in case of Ram Awatar & 22 others, which
order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in its judgment dated 01-03-2012 in W.P.(C)
2621/2010 and CM No. 5225/2010 titled MCD of Delhi
Vs. Ram Avtar & others and W.P.(C) 2671/2010 & CM
5318/2010 & CM 1203/2011 titled Municipal Corporation
of Delhi Vs. Virender Singh & others.
It is also submitted that both these Writ Petitions
were challenged by the Management of MCD in Special
Leave to Appeal (Civil) (CC10458-10459/2013, however,
vide order dated 02-07-2013 the said SLP was dismissed
and the order of CAT and judgment of Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi got finality and hence, all the workmen are
POIT -656-16 Page No. 4/20
entitled to the enhancement of higher ACP to both type of
workers i.e. Chowkidars/Security Guards transferred from
DDA and also recruited directly by the Management of
MCD. It is further submitted that now the dispute remain
only for grant of 2nd ACP after completion of 12 years of
Rs. 4500-7000 between 9th August 1999 till August 8,
2008 to the Chowkidars/Security Guards absorbed from
DDA or directly recruited by MCD.
3. Written statement was filed by the management
contending that the present dispute is not an industrial
dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act & as
such the present claim is not maintainable and is liable to
the dismissed; that the MCD General Mazdoor Union, has
no locus stand to raise the present dispute as it is a General
Dispute and the aforesaid Union is not recognized Union
of the management/EDMC and the as such the present
dispute is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed;
that the present dispute is not supported by the massive
majority of the category of Chowkidars or Security
Guards. Even the Union has not placed on record any list
of alleged Chowkidars or Security Guards, on whose
behalf the present dispute has been raised; that the present
dispute has not been properly espoused by the Union and
as such the same is not maintainable; that no demand
notice has been served upon the management, as such the
present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute and, therefore,
reference is bad in law and liable to be rejected. On merits
the management contended that the Chowkidars or
POIT -656-16 Page No. 5/20
Security Guards transferred from DDA & absorbed in
MCD or directly appointed by the Management were
granted lower pay scales in 1st ACP or in 2nd ACP after
completion of 12 & 24 years as alleged. The pay scale
granted by the management in Ist ACP to the Chowkidars
or Security Guards was in accordance with the ACP
scheme as formulated by the 5th Pay Commission and
denied that the Chowkidars of Security Guards employed
by the MCD are entitled for the alleged pay scale or that
non grant of the alleged pay scale to the category of
Security Guards or Chowkidars is discriminatory treatment
to the Security Guards or Chowkidars transferred from the
DDA to MCD.
It is further contended that the award passed by the
Industrial Tribunal an well as the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) no. 7459/2010-In
fact the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has directed the
management to grant the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 to the
Chowkidars or Security Guards, who have been found fit
for grant of benefit under the ACP scheme as first up-
gradation. The management was directed to examine the
eligibility and fitness of the workmen before granting the
benefit of the ACP scheme. It is further contended that the
award passed by the Industrial Tribunal an well as the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
W.P. (C) no. 7459/2010-In fact the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi has directed the management to grant the pay scale
of Rs. 3050-4590 to the Chowkidars or Security Guards,
POIT -656-16 Page No. 6/20
who have been found fit for grant of benefit under the ACP
scheme as first up-gradation. The management was
directed to examine the eligibility and fitness of the
workmen before granting the benefit of the ACP scheme. It
is further denied that the workmen are entitled for grant of
IInd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- as alleged.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by my ld. Predecessor vide order dated 24.11.2014.
1. Whether present dispute is an Industrial Disputes as
defined in section 2 (k) of Industrial Disputes Act ?
OPW
2. Whether MCD General Mazdoor Union has locus
standi to raise the present dispute? OPW
3. Whether the present claim of the workmen has been
properly espoused by the Union? OPW
4. Whether any notice of demand was served upon
management ? If not, its effect? OPW
5. As per terms of reference.
5. In order to prove its case, workmen examined Sh. Chandan
Singh as WW-1, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex. WW-1/A and relied upon several documents. Workmen
also examined Sh. B.K. Prasad S/o Sh. J. Prasad, President
of MCD General Mazdoor Union as WW-2, who filed his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW-2/A, and relied upon
documents Ex. WW2/1 to Ex. WW2/8. Both these
witnesses were duly cross-examined by AR for
POIT -656-16 Page No. 7/20
managements. Thereafter, W.E. was closed by AR for
workmen.
6. On the other hand, management produced Sh. Vijay Pal
Sharma, Assistant Director (Horticulture) in witness box as
MW-1, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.
MW-1/A and relied upon documents Ex. MW1/1 and Ex.
MW1/2. This witnesses was duly cross-examined by AR
for workmen. Thereafter, M.E. was closed by AR for
managements and matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have heard final arguments and perused the entire records
of the case including pleadings of the parties, evidence led
and documents proved during evidence. The issue wise
findings of this Tribunal are as under:-
Issue No. 1:
Whether the present dispute is an Industrial Dispute as
defined in section 2(k) of Industrial Dispute Act? OPW
11. For deciding this issue, the AR for the workmen has drawn
attention to the definition of "industrial dispute" mentioned in
Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The relevant portion is
reproduced below:
"2(k) industrial disputes - means any dispute or difference
between employers and employers or between employers
and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which
is connected with the employment or non- employment or
the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour,
of any person"
12. The aforesaid definition suggests that an industrial dispute
as any dispute or difference between employers and workmen or
POIT -656-16 Page No. 8/20
between workmen and workmen, which is connected with
employment or terms of employment or conditions of labour. The
dispute pertains to service benefits, namely, the entitlement to
financial upgradations (ACP), which squarely falls under the
ambit of "conditions of service". The workmen have claimed that
they have been denied rightful financial upgradations despite
fulfilling eligibility conditions and parity with similarly situated
employees. Thus, the dispute is industrial in nature. Hence, this
issue i.e. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the workmen and
against the management.
Issue No. 2, 3 & 4:
2) Whether MCD General Mazdoor Union has locus
standi to raise the present dispute? OPW
3) Whether the present claim of the workmen has been
properly espoused by the Union? OPW
4) Whether any notice of demand was served upon
management? If not, its effect?OPW
23. This Tribunal shall decide all the aforesaid issues together
as they are interconnected with each other. The
Management has contended that the MCD General
Mazdoor Union has no locus standi to raise the present
dispute. In this regard workmen examined WW-2 Sh BK
Parshad son of Sh. J Prasad, President of MCD General
Mazdoor Union, who proved the registration certificate of
the Union as Ex. WW2/1 and deposed that last elections of
their union had taken place in 2017 and had given the copy
POIT -656-16 Page No. 9/20
of list of their elected members of their union to all the
MCDs, Labour Department and Registrar of Trade Union.
He also proved the espousal letter as Ex. WW2/2A and
deposed that all the office bearers of the union were
present in the meeting. Even the management witness
MW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that in the
claim, it is specifically mentioned that the claim has been
filed through WW-2 Sh. B.K. Prasad, President of the
MCD General Mazdoor Union.
Though, MW-1 has stated in his affidavit that the
aforesaid Union is not the recognised union of the
management. However, neither in the cross-examination of
WW-1 or in the cross-examination of WW-2, (who
happened to be President of MCD General Mazdoor
Union), ld. AR for the management has given any
suggestion to the these workmen witnesses that the
workmen are not the members of the MCD General
Mazdoor Union or that the aforesaid Union has any locus
standi to raise the present dispute. On the other hand,
WW-1 has stated in his affidavit Ex. WW1/A that he is one
of the representative of the aforesaid Union. Even WW-2
in his affidavit has stated that the MCD General Mazdoor
Union is registered by the Registrar of Trade Union having
Registration No. 4209 and also proved the certificate as
Ex. WW2/1. The said fact has been reiterated by WW-2 at
various occasions in the present dispute, including his
affidavit and cross-examination. Ld. AR for the
POIT -656-16 Page No. 10/20
management nowhere in their cross-examination ever
challenged or controverted the authenticity of the
document Ex. WW2/1. Further, the present plea has not
been taken by the management before the Conciliation
Officer which is the first stage where the said objection/
plea could have been taken by the management. In the
present case, this objection seems to be an afterthought
which cannot be allowed by this Tribunal. Even otherwise,
in case, the management wanted to emphasize on this
issue, they should have led evidence in this regard. It is
also a fact that the management has not led any evidence
on this issue. Neither the said issue was pressed upon
while the arguments were put before this Court. This issue,
since not pressed, cannot come in the way to allow the
present dispute to be adjudicated upon. This Court has no
other option but to believe the workmen concerned, that
they are the member of the MCD General Mazdoor Union
and the said union can raise the present dispute for the
workmen concerned.
Even otherwise, document Ex. WW2/2 which is the
office order dated 29.07.2005 of the Addl. Dy.
Commissioner (Labour) so as to negotiate the and
correspond to MCD General Mazdoor Union (Regd. No.
4209) in the Horticulture department of M.C.D copy of
which was sent to General Secretary MCD General
Mazdoor Union, Director (Horticulture), All Zonal
D.D.Hs, All A.L.W.Os/L.W.Ss, etc. In the light of the
POIT -656-16 Page No. 11/20
above-mentioned facts and circumstances, Issue No. 2 is
decided in favour of the workmen and against the
management.
24. Ld. AR for the workmen has duly placed upon record Ex.
WW2/2(A) i.e. resolution dated 24.12.2006 passed by the
MCD General Mazdoor Union (Regd.), which is a
registered union, for taking up the cause of the workmen,
Moreover, the President of the MCD General Mazdoor
Union i.e. Sh. B.K. Prasad S/o Sh. J. Prasad appeared in
witness box and corroborated the claim of the workmen
and proved the documents related to espousal. Ld. AR for
the workmen also proved Ex. WW2/4 which is the demand
notice dated 27.11.2006 sent by the MCD General
Mazdoor Union to the Commissioner of MCD, Town Hall,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi through India/Speed Post.
25. Ld. AR for the workmen also placed reliance upon the
judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Omji
Srivastava and Ors. vs. P.W.D./C.P.W.D.,
2023/DHC/002013, 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 held that the
cause of the workman is properly espoused by the union.
Even otherwise present claim being matter of General
Demands issuance of espousal would not come in the way
of this claim. Hence, this issue i.e. Issue no. 3 is also
POIT -656-16 Page No. 12/20
decided in favour of the workmen and against the
management.
26. In order to prove the issue of demand notice to the
management, the workmen have placed their reliance upon
Ex. WW2/4, i.e. the legal demand notice issued to the
management whereupon there is postal receipt for the due
delivery of the said demand notice Ex. WW2/4, which was
sent through Speed Post in the office of the management.
Further, even through the management has taken this
objection that legal demand notice was never received in
the office of the management, it would not have any
impact on the present dispute because the same is not
mandatory before raising the present dispute. Exhibit
WW2/4 refers to the demand notice dated 27.11.2006.
Even if the same is disputed by management, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v.
Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1968 SC 529, clarified that while
a demand notice is relevant to establish a dispute, failure to
prove service is not fatal if the Government has made the
reference under Section 10. Here, the reference has already
been made under Section 10, post-factum. Therefore, this
issue does not affect maintainability.
27. Reliance is also placed upon Workmen of M.C.D. vs.
M.C.D., W.P.(C) No. 13023/2005 decided on 06.08.2007,
wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held the
following:
"5. Keeping in view the aforementioned
judgment, which clearly notes that there is no
POIT -656-16 Page No. 13/20
specific requirement in the I.D. Act that a dispute
has to be raised only by making a demand in
writing, any such interpretation given to Section
2(k) of the I.D. Act which narrows the definition
of the term, "industrial dispute" is not
permissible. Thus it cannot be held that merely
because a demand was not given in writing by
the petitioners to the respondent management,
there does not exist any industrial dispute between the parties. Making a written demand is not a sine qua non for raising an industrial dispute. Once the appropriate Government passed an administrative order referring an industrial dispute for adjudication to the industrial adjudicator, it has to be assumed that an administrative decision was arrived at by the Government after examining the material placed on the record that there exists an industrial dispute."
28. In view of the above, this tribunal holds that requirement of demand notice is not sine-qua-non for raising an industrial dispute under I.D. Act. Even otherwise, the workmen have placed on record the aforementioned documents which suggest that the workmen have duly sent the demand notice to the management. Therefore, this issue i.e. Issue no. 4 is also decided in favour of the workmen and against the management.
Issue No. 5:
As per terms of reference.
29. In his affidavit Ex. WW1/A, WW-1 Sh. Chandan Singh categorically stated that he is deposing on behalf of 1500 workmen including himself. He further stated that he was initially appointed as Beldar on daily wage by MCD in POIT -656-16 Page No. 14/20 1981. Thereafter, he was regularised as Chowkidar on 01.04.1982. He further deposed that he is deposing on behalf of 1500 workmen including himself. These workmen are posted in West Zone, Civil Line Zone, City Zone, Rohini Zone and Najafgarh Zone. In the statement of claim the workmen have claimed that all the workmen in the category of of Chowkidar/Security Guard were absorbed through transfer from DDA. It is further submitted that the Chowkidar/Security Guard directly recruited by MCD have been granted 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- and they are also entitled for 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000. It is the case of the workmen that the Chowkidars working in DDA have been allowed 1st ACP in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590, w.e.f 09.08.1999 after completion of 12 years of services and 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000, after completion of 24 years of services.
Hence, the Chowkidars/Security guards transferred from DDA are legally entitled for the same pay scale. The Chowkidars/Security guards directly employed by the MCD are also entitled for the same pay-scale and also they are also entitled to be promoted as Garden Chaudhary. It is further the case of the workmen that in a claim bearing ID no. 26/07, Learned Presiding Officer POIT-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi held that "Chaudhary which carries pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590 is promotional post of Mali, Chowkidars, Hedgemen, Machineman, and POIT -656-16 Page No. 15/20 bulluckman and when Chaudhary is promotional post of above posts, he further held that workmen are entitled to benefits of first ACP in the pay-scale of 3050-4590/- w.e.f 09.08.1999. The workers claim that DDA Chowkidars were granted 1st and 2nd ACP in the pay scales of Rs. 3050-4590 and Rs. 4500-7000 respectively, and that parity should be extended to those who were directly appointed by MCD as well.
30. The management filed appeal against the said award of POIT vide WPC no. 7459/2010, which was also decided in favour of the workmen. Therefore, Chowkidars appointed by MCD as well as transferred from DDA got the benefit of 1 ACP in the pay-scale of 3050-4590/-. The said order of Hon'ble High court has been proved as Ex. WW2/10. Thereafter, the Malies recruited through MCD have been granted first ACP in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- in another ID bearing no. 8/2004 case titled as MCD vs. Workmen wherein the Malies transferred from DDA to MCD also challenged the grant of lower pay-scale of Rs. 2650-4000 against MCD for the reasons that in DDA their service conditions were more favorable to them through TA no. 931/2009 with TA no.933/2009 Ex. WW2/5, which was also affirmed by Hon'ble High Court in W.P.C 2621/2010 & CM 5225/2010 vide order dated 01.03.2012 in case of Ram Avtar and others vs. MCD is Ex. WW2/6. Thereafter, management/MCD also challenged the said judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in SLP no.
POIT -656-16 Page No. 16/2010458-10459/2013 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 02.07.2013 Ex. WW2/7. Accordingly, the Chowkidars etc. who had come from DDA to MCD were allowed 1st ACP of Rs. 3050-4590 and 2nd ACP of Rs. 4500-7000 after completion of 12 & 24 years respectively. The workmen have also proved the copy of DDA order dated 11.08.2006 for grant of ACP as Ex. WW2/8. Apparently the Chowkidars/Security Guards directly appointed by MCD are performing the same and similar duty as performed by the Chowkidars/Security Guards transferred from DDA to MCD and the Chowkidars/Security Guards transferred from DDA to MCD are getting pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590 under 1st ACP and Rs. 4500-7000/- under 2nd ACP. On the other hand, the Chowkidars/Security Guards directly appointed by MCD are getting Rs. 3200-4900/- in place of Rs. 4500- 7000/-.
31. Per contra, MW-1 Sh. Vijay Pal Sharma, Assistant Director (Horticulture) in his affidavit has deposed hat the claim of the workmen is not maintainable and denied that the Chowkidars or Security Guards transferred from DDA are legally entitled for 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 3050- 4500 after completion of 12 years or 2nd ACP after completion of 24 years of service in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000. MW-1 further denied that the chowkidars or Security Guards, who were retained in the DDA, were allowed 1st and 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- and Rs. 4500-7000/- respectively or that the chowkidars or POIT -656-16 Page No. 17/20 security guards transferred from DDA to MCD are entitled for alleged pay scale.
32. The workers have relied upon the award passed in ID No. 26/07, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 7459/2010, and this award is further affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 10458-10459/2013, recognising the entitlement of Chowkidars (transferred from DDA) to ACP benefits. Similarly, in ID No. 8/2004 (MCD vs. Workmen), Malis transferred from DDA were granted the higher ACP pay scales which were further confirmed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 2621/2010, and the order dated 01.03.2012 in Ram Avtar & Others vs. MCD, which has now attained finality due to dismissal of SLPs.
33. The management has denied entitlement of the workmen concerned citing differences in source of recruitment and put its reliance on recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission. However, the denial lacks factual or legal strength in light of already adjudicated and settled precedents in favor of the workmen, which have been upheld at the highest judicial level.
34. Even management witness MW-1 has admitted that employees transferred from DDA were granted ACP-II while those directly recruited by MCD were not, despite same duties. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law. Discrimination between similarly POIT -656-16 Page No. 18/20 placed employees in absence of rational classification is unconstitutional. These precedents clearly support the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and establish a binding precedent for extending similar ACP benefits to all similarly placed employees.
35. In view of the foregoing discussion, judicial precedents, and evidence led by the workmen, the Tribunal holds that the Chowkidars/Security Guards transferred from DDA and also recruited directly by the management/MCD are legally entitled to the benefits of:
a) 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- upon completion of 12 years of service, and
b) 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- upon completion of 24 years of service.
36. It is further held that these benefits shall be extended with all consequential financial benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances. Hence the terms of reference is decided in favor of the workmen and against the management. The management is directed to implement the award within 60 days of its 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. 01.07.2013 to till its realization. The award is passed accordingly.
POIT -656-16 Page No. 19/2037. Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned to Records after due compliance. Digitally signed by MOHINDER MOHINDER VIRAT VIRAT Date:
2025.05.14 15:42:47 +0530 Announced in open Tribunal on this 13.05.2025 (Mohinder Virat) POIT-I/RADC, New Delhi.POIT -656-16 Page No. 20/20