Delhi District Court
Sh. Baljeet vs Sdmc on 23 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHARAD GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
POIT NO. 635/2016
Workman:
Sh. Baljeet
S/o Sh. Richpal
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),
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road
New Delhi-110002
Date of Institution : 17.07.2013
Date of Arguments : 10.03.2026
Date of Award : 23.03.2026
AWARD
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: Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.23 16:35:56 +0530 POIT-635/2016 Page No. 1/16 "Whether Sh. Baljeet S/o Richpal, Mason is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 w.e.f. 01.04.1987, revised from time to time along with all consequential benefits and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
Statement of Claim
2. In the statement of claim filed on behalf of the workman, it is stated that the workman h a s b e e n a p p o i n t e d a s Muster Roll Mason on 01.07.1980 and his services were regularized from Muster Roll Mason to Regular Mason as skilled workman w.e.f. 01.04.1987 in the lower pay scale of semi-skilled workman and posted in Ward No.15 under Division - 4 (Works) of MCD.
3. It is stated that the work of Mason is classified as skilled workman under the Central Pay Commission and also categorized after the implementation of Award given by the Board of Arbitration (JCM) revising the pay scale of skilled workers including Masons, from Rs. 260-350 to Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 01.01.1973 notionally and actual benefits in terms of of arrears of pay etc would accrue to them only w.e.f. 01.03.1973 and this benefit be also extended to such municipal employees who have entered in service after 01.03.1973 to the categories as skilled workers including Mason but the management wrongly paying them semi- skilled pay scales fixed by the Pay Commission from time to time but this workman was wrongly classified as unskilled workman for the work of Mason w.e.f. 01.04.1987 and granted the lower pay scale of Rs. 810-1150 in the semi- skilled category and further revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 2650-4000 instead of Rs. 950-1500 and revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to Rs. 3050-
4590 which is also against the policy of equal pay for equal work. Digitally signed
by SHARAD
GUPTA
SHARAD Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.23
16:36:04
+0530
POIT-635/2016 Page No. 2/16
4. It is further stated that the management arbitrarily granted the lower pay scale of Rs. 810-1150 in the semi-skilled category and further revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 2650-4000 instead of Rs. 950-1500 and revised from time to time.
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.
6. 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. 9 5 0 -1500 w.e.f. 01.04.1987 revised from time to time along with grant of ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 along with bank interest.
Written Statement
7. A written statement was filed on behalf of the management, raising preliminary objections that the present dispute is not an industrial dispute as it is not properly espoused by the Union and no demand notice was served upon the management prior to 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. 01.04.1987 on the semi- skilled post of Mason and was granted pay scale of Rs. 210-270 as per POIT-635/2016 Page No. 3/16 Digitally signed SHARAD by SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.03.23 16:36:33 +0530 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. 01.04.1987 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 since this scale is of the post of Sr. Mason as per Recruitment Rules.
10. It is further stated that the management, vide Resolution No. 902 dated 05.03.2007 circulated through Office Order no.173 dated 09.05.2007, merged the categories of Junior Mason/Mason and Mason/Senior Mason and created the post of Mason in the pay pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (revised Rs. 3050-4590) w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and all the arrears have been paid to the workman as per rules. The workman has also been given the benefit of difference of ACP Schemes after revision of the pay scale. Management has prayed for dismissal of the claim.
11. After completing of pleadings, the following issues were framed vide Digitally signed order dated 05.12.2018:- by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.23 16:36:44 +0530 POIT-635/2016 Page No. 4/16 (1) Whether the present claim of the workmen has been properly espoused by the union? OPW (2) Whether the present dispute is an industrial dispute as defined in Section 2 (k) of Industrial Disputes Act ? OPW (3.) Whether the statement of claim is not maintainable on the ground of delay and latches ? OPM (4) Whether demand notice has been served upon the management by the workman? OPW (5.) As per terms of reference.
(6) Relief
12. Perusal of the record shows that the workman had expired on 24.02.2020 and vide order dated 31.05.2022, Smt. Parkashi, wife of the deceased workman was impleaded in place of the deceased workman.
Workman's Evidence
13. In order to prove his entitlement, workman examined Sh. B.K. Prasad President of the Union as WW1 and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.WW1/A. He deposed on the lines of the claim of the workman and also proved the espousal of cause of the workman. He has relied upon the documents as WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/4.
Management's Evidence
14. Management examined MW1 Sh. Manish Huria, Assistant Engineer (M-I), South Zone, MCD by way of an affidavit Ex. MW1/A and has relied upon document Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2.
15. Final arguments have been heard at length as advanced by both the parties. I have gone through the documents, pleadings as well as arguments of parties.
Digitally signed by SHARADSHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.23 16:37:11 +0530 POIT-635/2016 Page No. 5/16 Analysis and Discussion Issue wise findings are as follows :-
Issue No. 1:- Whether the present claim of the workmen has been properly espoused by the union? OPW
16. It is submitted by AR for the management that the present dispute is not an industrial dispute as the same is not properly espoused by the Union.
17. Adverting to the facts of the present case, in order to prove the proper espousal, workman examined Sh. B.K. Prasad as WW-1 who duly proved on record the statement of claim filed by the Union on behalf of the workman as Ex.WW1/2 (referred to as registration certificate of Union in the evidence affidavit) and the espousal/sponsorship as Ex. WW1/3 in which resolution for raising the cause of workman was passed. He also produced the registration certificate of the Union in the Court. WW-1 was not cross examined despite opportunity on material aspect including the issue of espousal. The testimony of WW-1 has come on record unrebutted and unchallenged. Furthermore, in its written statement, the management only took a bald plea that the cause of the workman was not properly espoused without delving into the basis of the said objection. In the facts of the present case, this Tribunal is unable to find any deficiency in the espousal.
18. Furthermore, 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 Digitally signed POIT-635/2016 SHARAD by SHARAD GUPTA Page No. 6/16 GUPTA 16:37:58 Date: 2026.03.23 +0530 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.
19. 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.
20. Even otherwise, claim Ex.WW1/2 was also raised by the Union on behalf of the workman before the Conciliation Officer. Thus, the documentary evidence on record besides the testimony of WW-1 show that the cause of the workman was properly espoused by the Union. In face of the factual matrix of the case, the documentary evidence, as well as the oral testimony of WW-1, clearly establish that the cause of the workman has been properly espoused by the Municipal Employees Union. The arguments of the management in this regard are, thus, liable to be rejected.Thus, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Issue No.2:- Whether the present dispute is an industrial dispute as defined in Section 2 (k) of Industrial Disputes Act ? OPW
21. 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 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 Digitally signed SHARAD by SHARAD POIT-635/2016 GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.03.23 Page No. 7/16 16:38:09 +0530 defined as an industry.
22. 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".
23. The bare perusal of the definition clarifies the present dispute between the employer i.e. management and the employee i.e. workman regarding grant of pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 w.e.f. 01.04.1987 revised from time to time alongwith all consequential benefits squarely falls within the definition of industrial disputes as the same is connected with the employment, or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour. Thus, Issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the workman and against the management. Issue disposed of accordingly.
Issue No.3:- Whether the statement of claim is not maintainable on the ground of delay and latches ? OPM
24. The onus to prove this issue was on the management. The management has contended in its written statement that the claim of the claimant is not maintainable on account of delay and laches, as the workman was regularized on the post of Mason long back w.e.f. 01.04.1987 and was granted pay scale of Rs. 210-270 which was later on revised to Rs.800-1150. Ld. AR for the workman has argued that firstly, the Limitation Act is not applicable to Industrial Adjudication. Secondly, there is no delay as alleged by the management, because the workman was working on the post of Mason and granted him pay scale of Rs. 210-270 Digitally signed by SHARAD POIT-635/2016 SHARAD GUPTA Page No. 8/16 GUPTA Date:
2026.03.23 16:38:22 +0530 instead of pay scale of Rs. 260-400, which amounts to continuous wrong and giving rise to fresh cause of action every day. Even otherwise, the workman kept approaching the management time and again for his grievances, however the management did not pay any heed to it. Ld. AR for the workman argued that the present claim is not hit by delay and latches because limitation act, as such does not apply to the the proceedings under Industrial Disputes Act.
25. Ld. AR for the workman placed reliance upon case law titled as Kuldeep Singh vs. G.M., Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 455, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the following in Para 21 of the judgment:
"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 Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA POIT-635/2016 GUPTA Date:
2026.03.23 Page No. 9/16 16:38:32 +0530 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 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.
26. 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 the following in Para 11 of the judgment:
"11. 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 not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be Digitally signed POIT-635/2016 by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Page No. 10/16 GUPTA Date:
2026.03.23 16:38:41 +0530 generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman. "
27. In view of the judgments above, even though the Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings under Industrial Disputes Act, yet the dispute has to be raised within a reasonable time and there should not be any inordinate delay. In the present case, the management classified the concerned workman as unskilled workman for the work of Mason and granted him the lower pay scale. I find force in submissions of Ld. AR for workman that the same amounted to a continuing wrong and as such, the claim of the workman is within limitation. Further, although the management has taken the contention regarding the alleged delay/latches by the workman. However, the management has not shown any prejudice suffered due to this purported delay.
28. In Raghubir Singh Vs General Manager, Haryana Roadways, 2014 (10) SCC 301, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"31. The rejection of the reference by the Labour Court by answering the additional issue no. 2 regarding the delay latches and limitation without adjudicating the points of dispute referred to it on the merits amounts to failure to exercise its statutory power under Section 11A of the Act. Therefore, we have to interfere with the impugned award of the Labour Court and the judgment & order of the High Court as it has erroneously confirmed the award of the Labour Court without examining the relevant provisions of the Act and decisions of this Court referred to supra on the relevant issue regarding the limitation.."
29. In the light of above authoritative judgment, the claim of workman is required to be adjudged on merits rather to reject it on ground of delay Digitally signed POIT-635/2016 SHARAD by SHARAD GUPTA Page No. 11/16 GUPTA Date: 2026.03.23 16:38:50 +0530 and latches.
30. In view of the discussion above, this tribunal holds that the present dispute is very well maintainable and the same can not be rejected on the hyper-technical ground of delay/latches. Hence, Issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the workman and against the management. Issue disposed of accordingly.
Issue No.4:-Whether demand notice has been served upon the management by the workman? OPW
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. It is admitted position that the workman has not served any notice upon the management before raising industrial dispute. 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. In the facts of the present case, it is not denied that conciliation proceedings had taken place in the present matter before the concerned Authority and the Union had filed claim before the ALC/Conciliation Officer. 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. In the facts of the present case, the reference made by the Government itself suggests that an industrial dispute existed between the parties. None the less, Hon'ble Delhi High Court Digitally signed POIT-635/2016 SHARAD by SHARAD GUPTA Page No. 12/16 GUPTA Date: 2026.03.23 16:38:59 +0530 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. Thus in the facts of the present case, the mere fact that no demand notice was sent is not fatal to the case of the workman. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of workman and against the management. Issue No.5:- As per terms of reference.
34. In the facts of the present case WW-1 has proved on record office order of the management appointing the workman on regular basis w.e.f. 01.04.1987 as Ex.WW1/1 and has proved on record the office order of the management approving revision of pay scale inter-alia of Mason to Rs. 260- 400 (Pre revised) w.e.f. 0104.1980 as Ex.WW1/4. WW-1 has not been cross examined and his testimony has come on record unrebutted and unchallenged. Even otherwise, it is the admitted case of the parties that the workman was initially employed as Muster Roll Mason w.e.f. 01.07.1980 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1987 on the pay scale of Rs. 210-270.
35. 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 the contention of the management that workman was regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1987 on semi-skilled 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.
36. In this context, 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:Digitally signed by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.23 16:39:11 +0530 POIT-635/2016 Page No. 13/16 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." Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.23 16:39:19 +0530 POIT-635/2016 Page No. 14/16
37. 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 ther 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." Pertinently the MCD itself issued Circular Ex.WW1/4 recognizing and giving effect to the said directions.
38. 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. Furthermore, there is nothing on recor ot suggest if there was any 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 a mason. Relief
39. 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. 9 5 0 -1500 w.e.f. 01.04.1987, revised from time to time, along with all consequential benefits, monetary or otherwise, together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of reference 30.05.2013 till the date of actual payment. The reference is answered accordingly. Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.03.23 16:39:27 +0530 POIT-635/2016 Page No. 15/16
40. A copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
41. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in the open court on 23rd March, 2026 Digitally signed SHARAD by SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.03.23 16:39:34 +0530 ( SHARAD GUPTA ) Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-II, Rouse Avenue District Court New Delhi POIT-635/2016 Page No. 16/16