Delhi District Court
As Yuvneet Kumar & Others vs . Mcd & Others. on 16 August, 2007
:1:
IN THE COURT OF SH. I.S. MEHTA:
PRESIDING OFFICER: INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.I:
ROOM NO.2: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
ID No. 14/07.
BETWEEN
The management of M/s. MCD
through its Commissioner, Town Hall,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
AND
Its workman
Sh. Subramaniam S/o Sh. Kalian
as represented by Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh,
Delhi Pradesh, P-2/624, Sultanpuri, New Delhi.
Date of Institution :- 17.02.2007
Date of Reserve for Award :- 06.08.2007
Date of Passing of Award :- 16.08.2007
AWARD
Secretary (Labour), Govt. of the National Capital
Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute arising between the
parties, named above for adjudication vide notification
No.F.24(1602)/05-Lab./1169-1173 Dated 14.02.07 with the
following term of the reference :-
(i)"Whether Sh. Subramaniam S/o Kalian is
entitled to be regularized as Safai
Karamchari in proper pay scale along with
all consequential benefits with effect from
24.04.90 and if so, what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
(ii) "Whether the said workman is also
entitled to the wages as is admissible to
his counterparts from the period 24.04.90
to 24.04.97 and if so, what directions are
necessary in this respect?''
:2:
1.In the statement of claim, it is stated that workman was initially appointed on 24.04.1990 on the post of Safai Karamchari as daily wages on the reserve category of Cured Laprosy which was granted under Welfare scheme of the Government. It is further stated that the workman has to discharge the duty of similar nature as of regular employee as the said post was vacant due to retirement/long absentee of the employee and that he has similar qualification as of regular and permanent employee.
2. It is further stated that management has regularized the services of said workman from 24.11.1997 in place of 24.04.1990, but, he is entitled for the regularization of service from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits. It is further stated that vide circular dated 09.11.2001, the employees working effective from 31.03.1990 should be regularized from 01.04.1995, but in the present matter, no such type of policy is followed, hence, the attitude of management is totally illegal and against the principles of natural justice.
3. It is further stated that workman is entitled for regularization from his initial date of joining i.e. 24.04.1990 along with all consequential benefits and also salary equivalent to permanent employee effecting from 24.04.1990 to 22.04.1997.
:3:
4. It is prayed that an award be passed in favour of the workman thereby directing to the management to regularize the services of the workman from 24.04.1990 along with all consequential benefits and to pay the salary equivalent to a permanent employee w.e.f 24.04.1990 to 24.04.1997 along with all consequential benefits on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
5. In the written statement, filed on behalf of the management, it is stated that 93 similar candidates were appointed vide dated 10.4.1990 as leprosy cured candidate and the name of present workman is at serial number 71 of the said office order and the aforesaid candidates are similarly placed. It is further stated that daily wager employee is regularized as per the policy of the management in phased manner and the workman was considered as a special case being leprosy cured. If the workman would have been treated as a general candidate, he would have been regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1999 as per policy of management. Thus, no discrimination has been done by the management and the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected.
6. Rejoinder was filed, wherein all the contentions raised in the written statement have been controverted and the averments made in the claim have been reiterated. :4:
7. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether Sh. Subramaniam S/o Kalian is entitled to be regularized as Safai Karamchari in proper pay scale along with all consequential benefits with effect from 24.04.90 and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Whether the said workman is also entitled to the wages as is admissible to his counterparts from the period 24.04.90 to 24.04.97 and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?''
8. In support of his claim, the workman has examined as WW1 who proved his affidavit. On the other hand, the management has examined MW1- Smt. Raj Rani- Assistant Commissioner, DEMS, MCD, Headquarter, Delhi, who proved his affidavit Ex.MW1/A.
9. On behalf of the workman, Sh. R.K. Pandit- ARW has submitted that the workman was appointed as Safai Karamchari on 24.04.1990 with the management and his services were regularized w.e.f. 24.11.1997 and that he be held entitled for regularization with his counterparts from his initial date of joining i.e. 24.11.1997 along with all consequential benefits on the principles of equal pay for equal work.
:5:
10. On the other hand, Learned AR of the management Sh.Vivek Sharma has opposed the contentions of workman and has submitted that the workman was regularized as per policy of the management in phase manner programme and is not entitled to the relief as claimed.
11. So, far the regularization of the workman from the initial date of joining with the management, is concerned, the workman during his cross-examination has admitted that he was appointed by the management as daily wager. He has further admitted that his counter-parts were also regularized with him in the year 1997. The said admission is reproduced as under :-
"It is correct in the year 1990, I was taken into the employment of MCD as a daily wager on muster roll. It is correct that the persons/ counter-
parts, appointed along with me are also regularized along with me in the year 1997.
9. As per the workman's own version, he was engaged on muster roll on 24.04.1990 and was regularized w.e.f. 24.11.1997. The fact of said regularisation of the workman is also admitted by the management in its written statement. :6:
10. The contention of Learned AR of the workman that the workman who are paid under Minimum Wages Act, be given the salary as that of regular employee for the period he worked as daily wagers muster roll employees prior to his regularization, is not convincing. The workman on his own choice was in the employment of the management and his working as daily wagers cannot be equated with that of regular employee. So far as the regularization of the workman is concerned, the management has already admitted in its written statement that the workman was regularized giving him benefit being leprosy cured as per policy in phased manner of the management.
11. So far as the question of equal pay for equal work is concerned, the workman cannot be equated with his counter parts who was regular employees as he was daily wager. He was appointed as daily wager as per his own wishes and he received the salary as per the minimum wages. The workman has already been regularized w.e.f. 24.11.1997 under the policy of the management. So, his claiming of equal pay for equal work is not justified, in view of the orders, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2005 LLR P-366 titled as YUVNEET KUMAR & OTHERS VS. MCD & OTHERS. Therefore, the workman is not entitled to equal pay for equal work as claimed in his statement of claim and he is also not entitled to claim service benefits for the intervening period. :7:
12. In view of the discussions made above and since the management has a policy of regularization in phased manner and the workman concerned was already regularized w.e.f. 24.11.1997 giving him the benefit being leprosy cured, it is held that the workman is not entitled to regularization w.e.f. 24.04.1990 (initial date of joining) and is also not entitled to equal pay for equal work for the period he worked as muster roll employee. The reference is answered against the workman. The award is passed, accordingly. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON DATED : 16.08.2007.
[ I.S. MEHTA ] PRESIDING OFFICER:
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.I:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI.