Delhi District Court
Sudan Singh vs Sdmc on 20 September, 2025
POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
POIT No. 278/2019
CNR No. DLCT13-000763-2019
Sh. Saudan Singh
S/o Sh. Chhidda Singh
R/o House No. 7B/13,
Private Colony, Sriniwas Puri,
New Delhi-110065
Through
General Secretary
Municipal Employees Union
Agarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi- 110054 ..... Workman
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
through its Commissioner (South)
Dr. S.P. Mukharjee Civic Center,
J.L. Nehru Marg,
New Delhi-110002 ....Management
Date of institution 01.02.2019
Order reserved on 20.08.2025
Date of Award 20.09.2025
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. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.20 20:39:27 +0530 Award Page 1 of 15 POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
F.24/(607)/Lab/SD/2018/18858 dated 14.08.2018 with following terms of the reference:
"Whether the demand of the workman Sh. Saudan Singh (corrected as per corrigendum dated 25.01.2021) S/o Sh. Chhidda Singh for regularization of his services on the post of Beldar with retrospective effect from the initial date of his joining into the employment or as per policy or when his counter parts were regularized w.e.f. 1990 with all consequential benefits thereof either monetary or non monetary with all arrears thereof on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is legal and justified; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
Statement of Claim
2. It is the claim of workman that he joined into the employment of the management from February 1983 as a Beldar as daily wager/ muster-roll worker and was being paid his wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act while his counterparts were getting their salary in proper pay scale and allowances. He has unblemished and uninterrupted record or service to his credit.
3. It is submitted that workman including the other workmen filed a Writ Petition bearing No.2612/1986 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with C.M. No.2586/1986 in which directions were issued to the management to pay the same salary and allowances as are being paid to the Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.20 20:39:40 +0530 Award Page 2 of 15 POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
regular employees of equal status posts, either the employees were employed for seasonal or casual work.
4. It is submitted that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.2698/1986 dated 17.12.1987 directed the management to prepare a joint seniority list of all the categories of workers/beldars and shall be regularized as per that seniority list.
5. It is submitted that the workman was under the impression that his name is in the Seniority List but in the year 1997 he came to know that all the co-employees of the workman working as daily wages/seasonal employees were regularized in the year 1990 but the management did not take any action to regularize the workman from 1990. The management regularized the services of the workman w.e.f. 18.08.2004.
6. It is submitted that non-regularization of services of the workman since his initial dates of joining on the post of Beldar 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, bad, unjust and malafide and amounting to unfair labour practice and amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in Section 2 (Rs) 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. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.20 20:39:46 +0530 Award Page 3 of 15 POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
7. It is further stated that MCD 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 nor it has any certified Standing Orders, governing service conditions of such workers and, therefore, the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are applicable to the workman and the management.
8. It is averred that workman acquired the status of permanent employees outright from the respective date of his joining after completing 90 days of continuous service as prescribed in the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Even otherwise, after completion of 240 days of continuous employment on regular basis as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "ONGC Itd. Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Ors. (2015) IILJ 257 SC".
9. It is submitted that employing persons on regular nature of jobs and treating him as a monthly paid/ muster roll workers and paying them lesser remuneration that those doing the 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 Digitally signed Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as held by the Supreme Court GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.09.20 20:39:53 of India in this Matter of "Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. The +0530 Award Page 4 of 15 POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
Secretary, Municipal Employee Union and Ors" (2015) II LLJ 403 SC, "ONGC Itd. Vs. Petroleum Coal labour Union and Ors. (2015) IILJ 257 SC", and "Simens Limited and Anr. Vs. Siemens Employees Union and Anr. (2011)9 SSC 775".
10.It is stated that workman has been meted out with hostile discrimination as juniors to him has been regularized in service in proper pay scale and allowances since his initial dates of joining but the workman aforesaid has been completely ignored in this matter and in this regard a demand notice was served upon the management by registered A.D. post vide communication dated 19.11.2016, which was duly received in their office, 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.
11.Workman has prayed that an Award be made in favor of the workman and the management be directed to regularize the services of the workman aforesaid on the post of Beldar with retrospective effect from the initial date of his joining into the employment or when his counterparts were regularized w.e.f. 1990 with all consequential benefits thereof either monetary or non- monetary and with all arrears thereof on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work". Cost of litigation has also Digitally signed been prayed for. by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.20 20:39:59 +0530 Award Page 5 of 15 POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
Written statement
12.Management in its written statement raised preliminary objections that the present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute, as it is not espoused by the Union. No demand notice has been served upon the management prior to raising of the present dispute.
13.It is stated that management has its own policy of regularization i.e. phased manner regularization policy and management regularizes its daily wager muster roll employees as per the availability of the posts and funds as per their seniority. No employee has been regularized from the date of his initial engagement as a daily wager. It is stated that workman was paid all the wager as per Minimum Wages Act and nothing is due to him. Management has prayed for dismissal of the claim. Rejoinder
14.Workmen in rejoinder to written statement denied all objections raised in the preliminary objections and reiterated the contentions made in the statement of claim. Issues
15.On 09.03.2022 on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1) Whether the present dispute has been properly espoused by the Union? OPW
2) Whether the Union has served demand notice upon the management before raising the present dispute, if not, its Digitally signed effect? OPW by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.20 20:40:07 +0530 Award Page 6 of 15 POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
3) As per terms of reference?
4) Relief Workman's Evidence
16.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 documents as Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/13.
Management's Evidence
17.Management examined MW1 Nidhi, Administrative Officer, MCD and she tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit as Ex MW1/A.
18.Final arguments have been heard at-length as advanced by Sh. Rajiv Agarwal, Ld. AR for the workman and Sh. Rajeev Bhardwaj, Ld. AR for the management. I have gone through the documents, pleadings as well as arguments of parties.
Analysis and Discussion Issue No.1:Whether the present dispute has been properly espoused by the Union? OPW
19.Management has taken an objection that the present Digitally dispute is not an industrial dispute as the same is not GAUTAM signed by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.20 20:40:17 +0530 Award Page 7 of 15 POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
properly espoused by the union. In order to prove the proper espousal, workman proved the minutes of meeting dated 03.11.2016 as Ex.WW1/4 in which passed a resolution for raising the cause of workman was passed.
20.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 Union.
21.Also, 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. In present case, statement of claim (Ex. WW1/3) was filed before the Conciliation Officer by the Municipal Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.09.20 20:40:25 +0530 Award Page 8 of 15 POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
Employees Union. The resolution dated 03.11.2016 i.e. Ex. WW1/4, wherein the Municipal Employees Union decided to raise an industrial dispute in favour of the workman has also been proved on record. Even the legal demand notice Ex. WW1/1 was sent on the letter head of the Union. Therefore, in view of the fact that the workman has proved above documents, there is no reason to cast doubt on the espousal passed by the Municipal Employees Union for raising an industrial dispute in favour of the workman.
22.As such, it is held that the cause of the workman has been properly espoused by the Municipal Employees Union. Accordingly, the issue stands decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Issue No.2: Whether the Union has served demand notice upon the management before raising the present dispute, if not, its effect? OPW
23.A demand notice Ex. WW1/1 along with postal receipt Ex.WW1/2 is proved by the workman, on the other hand, the management has denied the receipt of demand notice.
24.In his affidavit of evidence, WW1 deposed that a demand notice as Ex. WW1/1 dated 19.11.2016 was sent to the Management by the Union through postal receipt Ex.WW1/2. It establishes that demand notice was duly Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN sent to the management through registered post. MANAN Date:
2025.09.20 20:40:31 +0530 Award Page 9 of 15 POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
25.Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P (C) No. 13023/2005 titled "Workmen of MCD vs. MCD", has observed that serving of demand notice is not sine-qua-non for raising an industrial dispute. Therefore, in view the fact that workman has proved service of the demand notice on the management, this issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Issue No.3: As per terms of reference.
26.The question to be decided is whether demand of the workman for regularization on the post of Beldar with retrospective effect is justified or not. It is not in dispute that the services of the workman was regularized on 18.08.2004, however, workman is demanding that his service be regularized from date of his joining the employment or the date from when his co-employees were regularized.
27.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 as reported in (2004) 7 SCC 112, it was held that regularization is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or anybody or authority governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Regularization furthermore cannot give permanence to an Digitally signed employee whose services are ad-hoc in nature. It was also GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.20 20:40:38 +0530 Award Page 10 of 15 POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
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.
28.It is also argued that the management has its own policy of regularization i.e. phase manner regularization policy and the management regularizes its daily wage muster roll- employees as per availability of the posts and funds and the said policy was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MCD vs. Gauri Shankar & Ors., WPC No. 601/1997 dated 31.08.1999 and MCD vs. Brij Mohan, WPC No. 17932/2004 dated 27.10.2005.
29.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 Digitally signed indiscriminately reject the claims of by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.20 20:40:45 +0530 Award Page 11 of 15 POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
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 judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades."
30. In above noted authoritative decision, Hon'ble Apex Court has 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.
31.Factual matrix of the case indicates that the service particulars of the workman i.e. date of joining, designation and date of regularization are not disputed. MW2 Ms. Nidhi, Administrative Officer of Management deposed that the similarly placed workman who joined the service in 1983 were regularized as Beldar on regular pay-scale Digitally from 01.01.1990 and the workman was not given signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.20 20:40:51 Award Page 12 of 15 +0530 POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
regularization w.e.f. 01.01.1990 as name of the worker was mis-spelt.
32.There is no dispute about the fact that the workman was discharging the duties of Beldar from his initial date of joining and till date. Management has permanent sanctioned posts of Beldar in its establishment which suggests that the work of Beldar is permanent and perennial in nature.
33.Management, neither in its written statement nor during the course of the proceedings, has provided any reason as to why it resorted to appointing the workmen on a daily- wages basis in 1983, especially when the work of a Beldar is permanent and perennial in nature. The evidence reflects that all the similarly placed employees were regularized on 01.01.1990 and due to mis-spelling of name, workman Saudan Singh was denied regularization. Due to an inadvertent mistake, 14 years of service of the workman were taken away without any justification.
34.Though management has also argued that the workman has duly accepted his regularization w.e.f. 18.08.2004 out of his free will with all the terms and conditions without any protest, but, the evidence on record shows that workman made a representation seeking his regularization. Moreover, argument of the management is not tenable Digitally signed by GAUTAM because the workman has "consented" to their GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.20 20:41:01 +0530 Award Page 13 of 15 POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
regularization on the post of Beldar w.e.f. 18.08.2004, that does not give the license to the management to indulge in unfair labour practices.
35.In the present case, it is undisputed that:
a) Workmen has rendered continuous and uninterrupted service from the date of his initial appointment.
b) Workman is performing the permanent and perennial nature of work as a Beldar.
c) Management did not produce any record to establish that at the time when workman was appointed, there was no sanctioned post of Beldar.
d) There is nothing on record to indicate that the workman does not fulfill qualifications for the job rather he was regularized by the management w.e.f. 18.08.2004.
e)Management has admitted that the similarly placed employees who joined the service in February 1983 were regularized as Beldar on regular pay-scale from 01.01.1990.
36.In view of above discussions, it is held that the workman is entitled to regularization in service on the post of Beldar from the 01.01.1990 i.e. the date when his co-employees were regularized. As far as the question of equal pay for equal work is concerned, since the workman is performing the same work as being performed by his regular counterparts and there was no change in their work, Digitally signed working hours, roles, and responsibilities both pre and GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.20 20:41:08 +0530 Award Page 14 of 15 POIT No. 278/2019 "Saudan Singh Vs SDMC "
post-regularization, as such it is held that workman is entitled to the difference in wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work for the period of 01.01.1990 till 18.08.2004. Hence, the terms of reference/ issue no. 3 is answered in favor of the workmen and against the management.
Relief
37. In view of the above findings, it is held that the workman Saudan Singh S/o Sh. Chhidda Singh is entitled to regularization in service on the post of Beldar w.e.f. 01.01.1990 in the regular pay scale with all consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise. Workman is also entitled to the difference in wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work for the period from 01.01.1990 to 18.08.2004.
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. 14.08.2018 till its realization. The award is passed accordingly. Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open court on 20th September 2025. GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.09.20 20:41:16 +0530 GAUTAM MANAN PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI Award Page 15 of 15