Delhi District Court
Neeraj Kumar vs Ndmc on 18 October, 2025
POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
POIT No. 45/2017
CNR No. DLCT13-003127-2017
Sh. Neeraj Kumar & Others
As represented by
General Secretary
Municipal Employees Union
Agarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi ..... Workman
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner (North)
Dr. S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre,
J.L. Nehru Marg, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002. ..... Management
Date of Institution 14.03.2017
Order Reserved on 18.09.2025
Date of Award 18.10.2025
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. F.24(74)/Lab./CD/ 17/352 dated 02.02.2017 with following terms of the Digitally signed reference: GAUTAM MANAN by GAUTAM MANAN Date:
2025.10.18 21:27:03 +0530 Award Page 1 of 16 POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
"Whether the workmen Sh. Neeraj Kumar aged about 33 years & 3 Ors. (as per Annexure-A) are entitled for regularization of their services on the post of AMI & APHI with retrospective effect from the initial date of their joining or as per policy into the employment and if so whether they are also entitled for entire difference of salary on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" form the initial joining onwards and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.?"
Statement of Claim
2. The present claim has been filed by following workmen:
S. Name with parentage Post Joining Date 1 Sh.Neeraj Kumar S/o Asstt. Malaria 24.09.2010 Sh. Daya Chand Rawat Inspector 2 Sh. Kuldeep Rana S/o Asstt. Malaria 20.09.2010 Sh. Azad Singh Inspector 3 Sh. ParveenDabas S/o Asstt. Malaria 28.09.2010 Sh. N.S. Dabas Inspector 4 Sh. Kumar S/o Satish Asstt. Malaria 21.09.2010 Kumar Inspector
3. It is the case of the workmen that they were taken into job in 2010 w.e.f. from the dates as mentioned above. It is stated that the vacancies of Assistant Malaria Inspector (AMI) were advertised in various daily news papers. Consequently, the workmen applied for the same and subsequently, their interviews were taken. Thereafter, the police verification and medical examination was also got done by the management as part of the selection process. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.10.18 21:27:10 +0530 Award Page 2 of 16 POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
4. Workmen averred that after going through the entire selection process, the workmen were selected for their respective post i.e. AMI. It is stated that though the job for which workmen were employed was of permanent nature but despite that all the workmen aforesaid were taken in job on contract basis malafidely on a lump sum salary of Rs. 10,300/-.
5. It is stated that all the workmen are continuously discharging their duties since their inception till date but they were malafidely shown as employee on contract basis. It is submitted that the management is giving and artificial break of just one day after every six month to the workmen in order to avoid their legal liabilities. It is stated that the management illegally engaged the workmen on contractual basis though the job on which they are discharging their duties is of regular and permanent nature rather the management has no right at all to engage the workmen on contractual basis on the job of a permanent nature.
6. It is submitted that the workmen are continuously discharging their services from the year 2010 till date and as such their services are required to be regularized on permanent basis and they are also entitled to their salary in proper pay scale and allowances and though the workmen are entitled to be treated as regular and permanent employee from the initial date of their joining but the management has not taken any Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.10.18
21:27:21
+0530
Award Page 3 of 16
POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
step to regularize their service in proper pay scale and allowance from the initial date of their joining.
7. It is stated that the non-regularization of services of the workmen w.e.f. the initial date of their joining on their respective post of AMI in proper pay-scale and allowances and denial of proper salary at par with their counter parts on the principle of equal pay for equal work with all arrears thereof is totally illegal, unjust and malafide and amounting to unfair labour practice.
8. It is submitted that the job against which the workman aforesaid has been working is of a permanent and regular nature of job and employing persons on regular nature of jobs and treating them as a monthly paid/muster roll workers and paying them lesser remuneration than 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 Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the same was clearly held by the Supreme Court of India in the Matter of "Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. the Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and Ors" (2005)IILLJ 403SC vide judgment dated 27.03.2015, ONGC Itd Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Ors. (2015) IILJ 257SC, vide judgment dated 17.04.2015. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.10.18 21:27:28 +0530 Award Page 4 of 16 POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
9. It is stated that unfair treatment of the workman is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. That it amounts to sheer exploitation of labour.
10.It is submitted that the management 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/ contract workers, nor it has any certified Standing Orders governing service conditions of such workers and, therefore, Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are applicable to the workmen and the management and its Undertakings.
11. Workman submitted that she has acquired the status of a permanent employee from initial date of her respective joining into the employment after completing 90 days of continuous employment as provided in the Model Standing Orders framed under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,1946. Even otherwise, workman has acquired the status of permanent employee from initial date of her joining into employment after completing 240 days of continuous employment on regular basis as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. The Digitally Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and Ors". signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.10.18 21:27:33 +0530 Award Page 5 of 16 POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
12. Workmen submitted that action of the management in employing them as contractual or temporary and to continue them as such for years together with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in Section 2 (ra) read with Item No.10 of the 5th Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is against the intention of the legislation as contained in Section 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.
13.It is stated that many posts of AMI are lying vacant with management and recently DSSSB has also advertised various vacancies for the said posts which are to be filled up in near future. As such, the workmen have a prior rights on the said posts because they are already discharging their due and efficient services to the management aforesaid on their respective posts.
14.Workmen have submitted that as provided in Article 39(d) read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to men and women and is concerned with pay, benefits and holidays etc. and it was clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Union of India and ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gond" (JT 2013 (15) SC 186) vide judgment dated 25.07.2013, "Union of India Vs. Dineshen Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.10.18 21:27:39 +0530 Award Page 6 of 16 POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
K.K. (AIR 2008 SC 1026)" & Dhirender Chamoli & Anr. Vs State of UP. (1986) 1SCC637.
15.It is stated that a demand notice dated 22.12.2015 has been served upon the management by registered A/D post 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. Hence, workmen have raised the present dispute.
Written statement
16.Management did file a written statement, but as the same was not in accordance with law, as such, management was directed to file a fresh written statement in accordance with law, which the management did not file. Vide orders dated 11.07.2018, right of the management to file written statement was closed.
Workman's Evidence
17.In order to prove their entitlement, all workmen examined themselves as WW1 to WW4. Workmen tendered their evidence by way of their respective affidavits as Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW4/A. Workmen proved the following documents:
1. Copy of demand notice dated 22.12.2015 as Ex. WW1/1.
2. Copy of postal receipt as Ex. WW-1/2. Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.10.18
21:27:45
+0530
Award Page 7 of 16
POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
3.Copy of statement of claim of the workman and written statement of management filed before the Conciliation Officer as Ex.WW-1/3 &5.
4. Copy of Espousal Ex. WW-1/4.
5. Copy of Office Orders dated 17.09.2010, 23.09.2010, 24.09.2010, 07.08.2010 and 12.10.2011 of the management as Ex.WW-1/6 to 10.
18. Workman examined WW5 Surender Bhardwaj, General Secretary of Municipal Employees Union, he tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.WW5/A and proved a copy of resolution for espousing cause of workmen as Ex.WW1/4.
Management's Evidence
19.Management examined MW1 Geeta, Assistant Commissioner, House Tax Department, MCD. She tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied upon contract agreements of workmen as Ex.MW1/1.
Analysis and Discussion
20.The question to be decided is whether demand of the workmen n for regularization on the post of AMI with retrospective effect is justified or not.
Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.10.18
21:27:50
+0530
Award Page 8 of 16
POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
21.It is not in dispute that workmen were employed by the management as contractual employees and their contract has been extended from time to time. Let us examine what MW1 Geeta, deposed in her cross-examination in this regard:
The documents filed by the workmen on the Court record are admitted and not in dispute by the management. It is correct that the concerned workmen are continuously working from their initial date of joining in 2010 to till date. Vol. They are given one day mandatory break in between. It is incorrect to suggest that the mandatory one day break is given for the sole purpose of denying them continuous service. All four of them are working as Assistant Malaria Inspector(AMI).
It is correct that the concerned workmen are performing the same work with same working hours and roles and responsibilities akin to their regular counterparts who are paid salary in regular pay scale. It is correct that concerned workmen fulfill the requisite qualification for the post of AMI. It is correct that the concerned workmen are working against the permanent and vacant post of AMI carrying regular pay scale with attendant benefits. Vol. These workmen are being paid fixed contractual amount plus DA.
I have not brought the service record pertaining to the concerned workmen regarding their initial appointments. Vol. Record is not available. I cannot admit or deny that the post were advertised and a Selection Board was constituted by management and after the concerned workmen found suitable for the post. It is incorrect to suggest that deliberately and intentionally I have not brought the said file as it will prove the case of the workmen that they were appointed after due selection procedure. Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN The job against which the concerned workmen GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.10.18
are working is of perennial nature. 21:27:56
+0530
Award Page 9 of 16
POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
The work and conduct of workmen are
satisfactory and there is no complaint till date. Vol. Since they perform the satisfactory work hence we keep renewing their contract. I cannot assign any reason as to why the concerned workmen were not appointed as regular and permanent AMI with attendant benefits from the initial date of joining despite the fact that concerned workmen was fulfilling requisite qualification and posts were available. Vol. The relevant records of the concerned employee is not available. It is incorrect to suggest that records were available but intentionally I have not placed on record as it will prove the case of workmen.
22. It is argued on behalf of management 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 any body or authority governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Regularization furthermore cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are ad-hoc in nature. It was also 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.
23.In "Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826", Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.10.18
21:28:01
+0530
Award Page 10 of 16
POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
"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 indiscriminately reject the claims of 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."
24. 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 Digitally signed employees. Hence, the reliance of the management on the GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.10.18 21:28:07 +0530 Award Page 11 of 16 POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
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.
25.Workmen have stated that the Selection Board constituted by Management selected them against the vacant and sanctioned post of AMI after they successfully completed interview and medical test. MW1 during her cross-examination did not deny that Selection Board constituted by management found workmen suitable for the post. MW1 admitted that workmen fulfills all the conditions mentioned in the recruitment rules for the post of AMI, and they were duly appointed against vacant and sanctioned post.
26.It is evident that the workmen have worked with the management continuously for almost 15 years. There is no dispute about the fact that the workman was discharging the duties of AMI from their initial date of joining and till date. Work of AMI is permanent and perennial in nature. Even though the workmen were stated to be engaged on contract basis, however, management failed to show as to why it had to resort to hiring workers as such despite it being a permanent and perennial nature of work.
Digitally
27. In the present case also the following facts emerge: signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.10.18 21:28:13 +0530 Award Page 12 of 16 POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
a) Workman has rendered continuous and uninterrupted service for almost 15 years.
b) They are performing the permanent and perennial nature of work as a AMI.
c) Workmen were appointed against vacant posts.
d) MW1 admits that workmen fulfills qualifications for the job.
e) There is no material on record which finds that the services of workmen were not found satisfactory nor there is any complaint against them.
28.Management has failed to bring on record any policy specifically pertaining to regularization of AMI and even no rule/policy of the management can outweigh the Industrial Disputes Act. Whatever the policy may be, it should align with labour laws. The management cannot, under the guise of "policy", perform actions that are strictly prohibited under the Industrial Disputes Act.
29. The Industrial Disputes Act at Item No. 10 of Fifth Schedule outlines Unfair Labour Practice as "to employ workmen as badlies, casual temporaries, and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen." Such practice is not only prohibited under Section 25T but also punishable under Digitally signed Section 25U of Industrial Disputes Act.
by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.10.18 21:28:19 +0530 Award Page 13 of 16 POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
30.In industrial adjudications, where the employer has kept the permanent posts unfilled and indulged in the unfair labour practice of keeping workman on a temporary basis over prolonged periods of time, the statutory power of the industrial adjudicator to grant relief to the workman, including the status of permanency, continues, in such a case, Industrial Tribunal has the power to pass an order for regularization of the workman.
31.In "Jaggo Vs Union of India & Others, SLP (C ) 5580/2024,"
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
32. Recently, in Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr. in Civil Appeal no. 8558 of 2018, vide judgment dated 19.08.2025 Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.10.18 21:28:25 +0530 Award Page 14 of 16 POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
the Hon'ble Apex Court regularized the services of the workmen and has categorically held that :
"18.Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running."
33.Workmen have given sustained contribution to the management. There is no adverse remark against them. In view of undisputed service of the workmen and their perennial nature of duty coupled with vacancies of AMI and as held in above authoritative judgments, the service of the workman is entitled to be regularized on the post of AMI from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise.
34.As far as the question of equal pay for equal work is concerned, since the workmen are performing the same work Digitally signed by as being performed by their regular counterparts and there GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.10.18 21:28:33 +0530 Award Page 15 of 16 POIT No. 45/2017 "Neeraj Kumar & OthersVs NDMC"
was no change in her work, working hours, roles, and responsibilities both pre and post-regularization, it is held that workmen are entitled to the difference in wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Relief
35.In view of the above findings, it is held that the workmen as detailed in the para 2 of the present Award are entitled to regularization in service on the post of Assistant Malaria Inspector (AMI) in the regular pay scale w.e.f their date of joining into the employment with all consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise. They are also entitled to the difference in wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work w.e.f date of their initial joining.
Management shall implement the award within 30 days of the 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. 02.02.2017 till its realization. The award is passed accordingly.
Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. Award is directed to be published within 15 days of the receipt of the Award. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open court on 18th October 2025. GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.10.18 21:28:43 +0530 GAUTAM MANAN PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI Award Page 16 of 16