Delhi District Court
) Workman Has Raised The Present Dispute ... vs The Secretary on 12 July, 2018
1 IN THE COURT OF MS SHAIL JAIN, PRESIDING OFFICER, INUDSTRIAL TRIBUNAL02, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI ID No. 956/16 Sh Ashok Kumar, son of Sh. Charan Singh represented by Municipal Employees Union Aggarwal Bhawan G T Road, Tis Hazari Delhi54.
Vs M/s Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Through its Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandani Chowk, Delhi.
Date of Institution: 04.06.2010 Date of Order:12/07/2018 A W A R D
1) Workman has raised the present dispute and on failure of conciliation proceedings, GNCT of Delhi referred the dispute to this 1 Out of 22 2 Tribunal for adjudication in the following term of reference "Whether demand of Sh Ashok son of Sh Charan Singh for regularization as LDC is justified , and if so, to what relief, is he entitled?"
2) Statement of claim was filed on behalf of the workman. In the statement of claim, workman has stated that he had joined the management in February, 1975 as chowkidar. Initially he was treated as a monthly paid/muster roll worker and was paid the wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act, while his counter parts who were doing the identical work, but, who were treated as regular employee were getting their salary in proper pay scales and allowances. It is the claim of the workman that he had been transferred in CSE department in the year 198081 and was assigned the job/duties of bill clerk. Ultimately the services of the workman were regularized vide order dt 2.7.82 with retrospective effect from 1/3/81 but only as a safai karamchari. The workman objected for the same but he was assured that in near future, he will be regularized as LDC. Ultimately in the year 1988, an examination of LDC was conducted and subsequently workman was promoted as LDC w.e.f. 4/11/88. Thereafter workman was further promoted as UDC w.e.f. 20/05/97 after an examination in the year 1996. In fact workman has continuously discharged his duty as LDC since February 1975 and as such his services should have been regularized as LDC since the initial date of his joining and he should have also been paid the entire difference of
2 Out of 22 3 salary of safai karamchari and that of an LDC for the period from February 1975 till 3/11/88 along with seniority. It is the claim of the workman that the action of the management regarding non regularization of services of workman on the post of LDC since initial date and non payment of arrears on the post of LDC since initial date and non payment of arrears of difference in the salary of safai karamchari and that of LDC for the period from February 1975 to 3/11/88 and seniority is illegal and unjustified.
3) Management/MCD has filed the written statement wherein they have taken the preliminary objection that the present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute, as the same has not been espoused by the union. No demand notice has been served upon the management. It has been stated by the management that management has policy of regularization ie phase manner and availability of post only for the class IV daily wage employee and there is no policy of regularization for the post of LDC. In the absence of any regularization policy for the post of LDC, the present claim is bad in law and is liable to be dismissed. It has also been submitted by the management in the WS that as per the notified Recruitment Rules to the post of LDC, the recruitment to the post of LDC is either made by way of direct recruitment through DSSSB or by way of promotion after passing of departmental exams from amongst classIV, regular employees having five years of regular services. As per the Recruitment Rules, the written examination plus typing test at the speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi is required for the appointment/promotion to the post of LDC. The claimant was promoted to the post of LDC vide order dt 3 Out of 22 4 4/11/88 way back in the year 1988 after passing of the LDC departmental examination. And thereafter he was promoted to the post of Head Clerk vide order dt 28/12/2007and 07/05/2008. Hence the claim of the claimant for regularization on the post of LDC at the present juncture is absolutely baseless. The statement of claim is not maintainable on the ground of latches and inordinate delay. With these submission, it has been prayed by the management that claim of the claimant be dismissed.
4) On 09/04/2012, following issues were framed by my Ld Predecessor:
1) Whether the present dispute is an industrial dispute as defined in section 2 (K) of Industrial Dispute Act?OPW
2) Whether the statement of claim is not maintainable on ground of latches/inordinate delay?OPM
3) Whether the claim of the workman 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 support of his case, workman has appeared as WW1 and has tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex WW1/A. Workman has also relied upon documents Ex. WW1/1 to Ex WW1/24. WW 2 Sh Surender Bhardwaj has tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex WW2/A and has relied upon the document Ex.WW1/23.
6) From the side of the management, Sh Hemant Kumar has been
4 Out of 22 5 examined as MW1. MW1 has tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex MW1/A and has relied upon the documents from Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/4.
7) Arguments were heard from Ld A.R for the workman. Ld AR for MCD, Management has not advanced any argument but had filed written submissions. In support of their arguments, Ld AR for the parties have relied upon various judgments. In support of his arguments, Ld AR for the workman has relied upon the following judgments:
1) 1999 LLR 1020 Municipal Employees Union vs The Secretary (Labour) and another
2) MANU/SC/0254/1999Ajaib Singh vs The Sirhind CoOperative Marketing cum Processing Services Society Ltd and another.
3) Manu/SC/0103/2005 J H Jadhav vs Forbes Gokak Ltd
4) Delhi Jal Board vs Rameshwar Singh and anotherCM No 4131/15 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
5) Selvaraj vs Lt Governor of Island, Port Blair and others Appeal No.15681569 of 1998 date of decision 16/03/98.
6) W.P (C ) No 6659/2007 date of decision 10/11/2009 Union of India vs Sher Singh
7) WP ( C ) 1879/2008 date of decision 4/5/11Union of India vs Surender Kumar.
8) MANU/DE/2402/2014 MCD Vs Hari Kishan
9) Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2015 D O D13/1/15Jasmer Singh vs State of Haryana
5 Out of 22 6
8) In support of his arguments, Ld AR for the management has relied upon the following authorities:
1) ( 2004) 7 SCC 112 (Uma Rani Vs Registrar Cooperative Society
2) 2006 ILLJ721State of UP vs Neeraj Awasthi
3) 2000 (2) AD Delhi MCD Vs POIT2
9) I have considered the arguments advanced by Ld A.R for the workman, written submissions filed by the management, evidence led by the parties, the material available on record and the relevant provisions of law. I have also gone through the judgments relied upon by Ld AR for the parties. After considering the same, my issue wise findings are as follows: Issue no. 1 and 3 : ISSUE NO : 1 : Whether the present dispute is an industrial dispute as defined in section 2 (K) of Industrial Dispute Act?OPW ISSUE NO. 3 Whether the claim of the workman has been properly espoused by the union?OPW
10) I will discuss issue no. 1 and 3 simultaneously, as these issues are inter related.
11) Present dispute has been raised by the workman Ashok kumar for claiming that when he was appointed in MCD on daily wages, though he was appointed as Safai karamchari but he was given the responsibilities of LDC, therefore, he has sought the relief of being regularized as LDC from the date of his initial joining. From the reference, it is clear that it is an individual dispute of workman, which has been referred to this Tribunal. Management has taken the objection
6 Out of 22 7 that since this is a dispute of individual workman, this is not covered within the definition of industrial dispute as defined in section 2(K) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (herein after called as ID Act).
12) As per the provision of ID Act, whenever any dispute is raised by the workman against the employer i.e management, efforts are made for reconciliation of the dispute between the workman and management and in case reconciliation efforts fails, reference is made by the government under section 10 of ID Act to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Courts for adjudication of the dispute.
13) For better understanding of definition of industrial dispute as defined u/s 2 (K) of Industrial Dispute Act, same is reproduced as under:
Section 2 (K):
"Industrial dispute" 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 nonemployment or the terms of employment or with the condition of labour, of any person"
14) From bare reading of definition of industrial dispute as provided in section 2 (K) ID Act, it is clear that any dispute which is in relation to the employment and non employment or terms of employment or with the condition of labour of any person, as raised between workmen and workmen, between employer or employer or between the employer 7 Out of 22 8 and workmen will be considered as an industrial dispute. By various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it was held as early as in 1961 that dispute which is covered u/s 2 (K) of ID Act has to be the dispute of workmen and in case any individual dispute is referred to the Tribunal, same is to be espoused or sponsored by the union. In Bombay Union of Journalists and others vs The Hindu, Bombay and another 1963 AIR 318, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"That the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to an individual dispute as distinguished from a dispute involving a group of workmen is excluded, unless the workmen as a body or a considerable section of them make common cause with the individual workman".
In the case of Bombay Union of Journalists and others vs The Hindu, Bombay and another (mentioned above), Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case of Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd vs Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan, (1956) SCR 956 and the Newspaper Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal UP (1957) SCR 754 wherein it was held that:
"In Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd vs Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan, this court after setting out three possible views on the questions whether a dispute by an individual workman may be regarded as an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2 (K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 observed, " the
8 Out of 22 9 preponderance of judicial opinion is clearly in favour of the last of the three views stated above ( ie. A dispute between an employer and a single employee cannot perse be an industrial dispute, but it may become one if it is taken up by the union or a number of workmen and there is considerable reason behind it.
Notwithstanding that the language of section 2
(k) is wide enough to cover a dispute between an employer and single employee, the scheme of Industrial Dispute Act does appear to contemplate that the machinery provided therein should be set in motion, to settle only dispute which involved the rights of workmen as a class and that a dispute touching the individual right, of a workman was not intended to be the subject of an adjudication under the Act, when the same had not been taken".
In that case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case of Dimakuchi Tea Estate vs Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate (1958) SCR 1156 and has held that:
9 Out of 22 10 "Members of the union who were not workmen of the employer against whom the dispute was sought to be raised could not by their support convert an individual dispute into an industrial dispute. Persons who sought to support the cause of a workman must themselves be directly and substantially interested in the dispute and persons who were not employees of the same employer could not be regarded as so interested."
15) Therefore it was established by various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court that an industrial dispute can not be considered as an industrial dispute u/s 2(K) of ID Act, unless the same is sponsored or espoused by the union or by group of workmen, who are interested in the dispute. Thereafter, same opinion was expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Workmen of M/s Dharampal Prem Chand (Saugandhi) vs M/s Dharampal Prem Chand (Saugandhi) (1965) 3 SCR 394. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that:
"The decisions of this court have consistently taken the view that in order that a dispute between a single employee and his employer should be validly referred under section 10 of the Act, it is necessary that it should have been taken up by the Union to which the
10 Out of 22 11 employee belongs or by a number of employees. On this view, a dispute between an employer and a single employee cannot, by itself, be treated as an industrial dispute, unless it is sponsored or espoused by the Union of the workmen or by a number of workmen."
16) After considering the relevant provision of law, as settled, now I will examine the applicability of law to the facts in hand.
17) In the present case, admittedly, the dispute of single workman has been referred to this Tribunal. The claim of the workman is that his cause has been supported by the union, as the claim is signed by the General Secretary of the Municipal Employee Union. As per law, the espousal letter in favour of the workman or signing the statement of claim filed by the workmen will not prove the fact that union, as such has espoused or supported the cause of workman. As discussed earlier, it has been established by various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court that cause of individual workman unless espoused or supported by the union of workmen or group of workmen will not become an industrial dispute as per section 2(K) of ID Act. Whether the union had supported the cause of workmen is a question of fact, which depends on the facts of each case. It is the duty of the workman to prove the espousal of the union to his cause.
18) In the present case, workman who has been examined as WW1 has relied upon 23 documents ie from Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/23. Out of these documents, Ex.WW1/23 is stated to be the espousal letter 11 Out of 22 12 given in favour of the workman by the union. Workman had examined two witnesses. WW1 is the workman himself and WW2 is Sh Surender Bhardwaj, who was the General Secretary of the union.
19) From the perusal of the document Ex.WW1/23, it is clear that same has not been signed by WW1. Even WW2 Sh Surender Bhardwaj who has appeared on behalf of the union has not identified signature on the document Ex.WW1/23. He has categorically stated in his cross examination that document Ex.WW1/23 does not bear his signature. He has also admitted that he has not placed on record the Agenda of the meeting and Minutes of the Meeting in respect to the espousal of the cause of the workman. Witness has also stated that he had become the General Secretary of the union in the year 2010, Whereas the document Ex.WW1/23 is dt 5/12/2006, therefore, at the time, when the document Ex.WW1/23 was given, WW2 Sh Surender Bhardwaj was not the General Secretary of the union. He has also not stated as to who was the General Secretary in the year 2006, when the document Ex.WW1/23 was given.
20) In the written submissions submitted by Ld AR for the workman , he has stated that espousal letter has been given on the letter head of the union, which shows that cause of workman has been sponsored by the union. Perusal of the document Ex.WW1/23 clearly shows that this is not given on the letter head of the union. This document, firstly is photocopy ; no original of this document has been produced in the court; signatory to this document has not been examined by the workman, even the name of the person, who had signed the document, has not been mentioned either by workman who has appeared as WW1 12 Out of 22 13 nor by General Secretary of the union Sh Surender Bhardwaj, who has appeared as WW2 in the present case. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that workman has failed to prove that his cause was espoused or supported by the union or by the group of workmen. Therefore issue no. 3 is decided against the workman to the effect that cause of the workman has not been properly espoused by the union.
21) Since dispute raised by the workman has not been espoused by the union, as is proved against him in issue no. 3, therefore, present dispute as raised by the workman does not fall within the definition of industrial dispute as defined u/s 2 (K) of ID Act. Therefore, issue no. 1 is also decided against the workman.
22) Ld AR for the workman has relied upon the judgment of J H Jadhav vs Forbes Gokak LtdCivil Appeal No 1089 of 2005 (Arising of SLP (C ) No 19025 of 2004). In this case also Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of espousal by union and while considering the espousal, Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case of Workmen of M/s Dharampal Prem Chand (Saugandhi) vs M/s Dharampal Prem Chand (Saugandhi) (1965) 3 SCR 394 . The case of J H Jadhav vs Forbes Gokak Ltd (mentioned above) thus does not provide any help to the workman as in the case of J H Jadhav vs Forbes Gokak Ltd, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that :
"As far as espousal is concerned, there is no particular form prescribed to effect such espousal. Doubtless, the union must normally express itself in the form of a resolution which should be proved if it is in issue.
13 Out of 22 14 However, proof of support by the union may also be available aliunde. It would depend upon the facts of each case".
23) Therefore, it is clear that Hon'ble Supreme Court in J H Jadhav vs Forbes Gokak Ltd case (mentioned above) has held that union must express itself in respect to the espousal in the form of resolution which is to be proved. In the present case, neither any resolution of the union has been placed on record nor the document Ex.WW1/23 stated to be espousal letter has been proved in accordance with law. Hence, both Issue no. 1 and Issue no. 3 are decided against the workman. ISSUE No. 2: Whether the statement of claim is not maintainable on ground of latches/inordinate delay?OPM
24) Facts leading to the present case, are, that, in the year 1975 workman had joined the employment of the management, as Chowkidar/Safai Karamchari. He was initially a daily wager. The services of the workman were regularized vide office order dt 02/07/82 w.e.f. 1/3/81 as Safai Karamchari. It is the case of the workman that although he was regularized as Safai Karamchari in 1981, after being appointed as Chowkidari/SafaiKaramchari in the year 1975, but he was working as LDC since 1975, and therefore he has claimed that his services should have been regularized as LDC. Although workman had claimed that he was working as LDC, since initial date of his joining but no proper document/office order placing the workman as LDC or giving him the duties of LDC, has been placed on record by workman. It is also surprising to note that admittedly workman has undertaken the 14 Out of 22 15 departmental examination of LDC conducted in the year 1988 & after being successful in that exam, he was appointed as LDC w.e.f. 04/11/88. Thereafter again the workman was promoted as UDC w.e.f. 20/05/1997 after being successful in examination held in the year 1996. Further, workman was promoted as Head Clerk in the year 2007. It is important to consider that in the present case reference has been made on 02/06/2010 in the following terms:
"Whether demand of Sh Ashok son of Sh Charan Singh for regularization as LDC is justified , if so to what relief, is he entitled?"
25) The wording of the reference as made by the Government shows that the workman is seeking regularization "as LDC" but it does not specifically mention from which date, the workman is seeking his regularization on the post of LDC.
26) Management has taken the objection that dispute raised by the workman has been raised at very delayed stage,hence it is suffering from latches and inordinate delay and reference should not have been made by the Government. Admittedly, workman was regularized as Safai Karamchari in the year 1982, although he has claimed that he was working as LDC at that time also. Therefore, the cause of workman for seeking regularization on the post of LDC, as per claim of workman, had arisen in the year 1982 itself. But workman had preferred present dispute in the year 2010 ie present dispute has been referred to this Tribunal after a gap of 28 years. This dispute has been raised by the workman after he himself had undertaken the examination for becoming LDC and UDC and has been successful in 15 Out of 22 16 being appointed as LDC and UDC in the year 1988 and 1997 respectively. Even then, no dispute was raised by the workman and finally in the year 2007 workman had been promoted as Head Clerk but dispute has been raised by the workman in the year 2010 and no explanation has been tendered by the workman for such delay.
27) Ld AR for the workman has relied upon two judgments on the point of delay i. e (1) Ajaib Singh vs The Sirhind CoOperative Marketing Cum Processing Service Society Ltd and Another CA No 2157 of 1999 date of decision is 8/4/99 and (2) Jasmer Singh vs State of HaryanaCivil Appeal No 346 of 2015 date of decision 13/01/2015 and has submitted that since Limitation Act does not apply to the Industrial Dispute Act, therefore, no limitation has been prescribed in raising the industrial dispute.
28) In Ajaib Singh vs The Sirhind CoOperative Marketing Cum Processing Service Society Ltd and Another before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter came up regarding delay in filing the dispute, it was discussed in detail by Hon'ble Supreme Court that since no limitation has been provided in raising the industrial dispute, therefore Article 137 of the Limitation Act cannot be held to be applicable under the Act. After discussing various other judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh's case has finally observed that since the issue of delay was not involved in the present matter as the management has not shown to have taken any plea regarding delay, no final opinion was expressed in that regard. Therefore judgment of Hon'ble Supreme 16 Out of 22 17 Court in Ajaib Singh's case (mentioned above) can be differentiated from facts in hand. In the present case, management had clearly taken objection that reference had been made at delayed stage.
29) Similarly judgment relied upon by Ld AR for the workman in Jasmer Singh vs State of Haryana (mentioned above) is also not of much help to the workman. Firstly it is important to note that both judgments of Ajaib Singh case as well as Jasmer Singh vs State of Haryana case and other, matters which have been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh case were relating to the termination of the workman and not having the facts similar to the present facts in hand. Coming to the case of Jasmer Singh vs State of Haryana (mentioned above) in that case workman was terminated on 31/12/93 and he made demand notice on 27/11/96, thereafter reference was made to Industrial Tribunal by the Government. The Industrial Tribunal while deciding the reference relying upon the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh case held that limitation period is not applicable to the proceedings of the Act. The relevant paragraph from Ajaib Singh case (supra) are extracted herein below:
" 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
17 Out of 22 18 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 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 till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissed. The court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full wages."
30) After considering the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh and Jasmer Singh case (mentioned above), I am of the opinion that facts of the present case in hand are entirely different from the facts before Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus same can be differentiated. In both cases ie Ajaib Singh and Jasmer Singh case (mentioned above), dispute has been raised after the workman was terminated and after a gap of about 7 years in Ajaib Singh case and three years in Jasmer Singh case, reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal. Whereas in the present case, workman is continuously 18 Out of 22 19 working with the management, secondly the workman is seeking the relief of regularization on the post of LDC, although he has been duly regularized by the management on the post of Safai Karamchari in the year 1982; thirdly present dispute has been referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government in the year 2010 ie after about delay of 28 years from the first regularization of the workman in the year 1982. In Ajaib Singh case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the plea of delay is raised by the employer, then it is required for the employer to prove the real prejudice caused to the management/employer. In the present case, once the workman has been regularized as Safai Karamchari because he was appointed as daily wager i.e. as Chowkidar cum safai Karamchari and finally in the year 1988 he himself had been successful candidate for the post of LDC and was duly appointed as LDC by the employer, than after a gap of 2728 years workman can not be allowed to raise the dispute that he should have been regularized on the post of LDC in the year 1982 from the date of his initial joining. No reasonable explanation has been furnished by the workman as to why he had not raised the dispute either in the year 1982 when he was regularized as Safai Karamchari or in the year 1988 when he himself had become successful candidate in the departmental examination of LDC.
31) My view also gets support from the judgment of Ramesh Kumar vs Delhi Jal Board 2012 LLR 713 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In this case, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that unexplained delay of 6 ½ years in raising the industrial dispute by the workman may disentitle him from any relief by the Industrial Tribunal. Further in 19 Out of 22 20 Nirmal Singh vs Labour Court, Patiala 2012 (3) CLR 490 Punjab and Haryana High Court, Hon'ble High Court referred to certain decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was observed that when the power is conferred by Statute without mentioning the period within it, it could be invoked, same has to be done within the reasonable period, as all the powers must be exercised reasonably and exercise of the same must be within the reasonable period. It was pointed out that appellant did not give any explanation for the inordinate delay of 11 years in raising the dispute, hence petition was dismissed.
32) In the present case in hand, the delay is for more than 28 years without any explanation on the part of the workman, therefore, I am of the opinion that this issue is to be decided against the workman & in favour of management that claim of the workman is not maintainable on the ground of latches/inordinate delay.
ISSUE NO. 4: Whether any notice of demand was served upon management, if not, its effect?OPW
33) As per the evidence of workman, notice Ex.WW1/1 was sent by the workman to the management. From the perusal of the document Ex.WW1/1, it is clear that same is signed by some General Secretary, without mentioning the name of the person holding the post of General Secretary and also without mentioning the association or union of which the letter has been signed. Admittedly WW1 has not signed the legal demand notice. Even WW2 Sh Surender Bhardwaj has submitted that same is not signed by him. It has not been proved on record by the workman, as to who was the person who has signed the letter Ex.WW1/1, therefore it cannot be considered that valid demand notice 20 Out of 22 21 has been sent by the workman to the management, hence this issue no. 4 is also decided against the workman.
Issue no 5: AS PER THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
34) In the present case, the relief sought by the workman as per the reference is a vague relief, because reference is to the effect, "whether the demand of Ashok Kumar for regularization as LDC is justified and if so to what relief is he entitled". Since the workman, at the time of making the reference to the Industrial Tribunal was already working as Head Clerk, after being successfully appointed as LDC in year 1988 and as UDC in year 1997, therefore, reference in itself is not proper reference. It does not show from which date, workman is claiming to be regularized as "LDC".
35) Admittedly workman was appointed on daily wage basis as Chowkidar/Safai Karamchari in year 1975 & was regularized as Safai Karamchari in 1982 w.e.f 1981. Management had specifically mentioned and proved by evidence that "regularization policy" is applicable only for class IV employees & not for post of LDC. It is clearly stated by MCD in their WS that at the post of LDC, either the worker could be appointed by way of direct recruitment through DSSSB or by internal departmental examination. It is also, the case of workman herein, that he had appeared in departmental examination of LDC in 1988, and after being successful, was appointed as LDC in 1988, and was also given further promotions. Thus, it is clear that workman was himself aware of the procedure for appointment on the post of LDC & being competent was appointed as LDC in 1988. Therefore, it can not be now claimed by the workman that he should be regularized as LDC 21 Out of 22 22 from his initial appointment in 1975 or from 1981, when he was regularized as safaikaramchari. Further, by the documents relied & placed on record by workman, it is not proved that by any official order, any work of LDC was ever entrusted to workman.
36) Even otherwise, as per my above discussion, issue no. 1 and 3 have been decided against the workman to the effect that dispute raised by the workman is not an industrial dispute as per section 2 (K) of ID Act, as the same has not been properly espoused by the union, therefore, present reference made to the Tribunal cannot be decided by this Tribunal. Issue no. 2 has also been decided against the workman to the effect that present statement of claim is not maintainable on the ground of latches/inordinate delay and issue no. 4 has been decided against the workman that no notice of demand has been served by the workman on the management.
37) In view of this, the reference is thus answered in negative. Award is passed accordingly.
38) Copy of this award be sent to GNCT of Delhi for publication.
39) File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court on (SHAIL JAIN)
this 12th July, 2018. Presiding Officer,POIT02 Dwarka Court, New Delhi.
Digitally signed SHAIL by SHAIL JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2018.07.16
13:40:55
+0530
22 Out of 22