Delhi District Court
The Workmen vs The Management on 6 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHAVIR SINGHAL: POIT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
I.D. No. 62/04
The Workmen
Sh. Ashok Kumar and others, through All India General Mazdoor Trade
Union, 170, Balmukund Khand, Giri Nagar Kalkaji, New Delhi-19
Versus
The Management
1. M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., 25, Ghanshyam House, Nehru Place,
New Delhi -19
2. M/s. Amar Singh, B 337, Lajpat Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP.
3. M/s Neha Enterprises, H.R. 142/7, Prahladpur, DDA Flats, Surajkund
Road, New Delhi 110044.
4. M/s D S Rawat, 934, Ram Park Extension, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP.
Date of institution: 28.05.2004
Date of reserving judgment: 22.02.2012
Date of Pronouncement 06.03.2012
AWARD
1. Workmen have raised the present industrial dispute through Union
and on failure of conciliation proceedings, GNCT of Delhi referred the
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication in following terms of reference:-
''Whether the services of workmen shown in
Annexure A are entitled for regularisation on the
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 1 of 21
post as per Annexure A w.e.f. their initial date of
joining in services with all the consequential benefits
at par regular employees, if so, what relief are they
entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect?"
2. Statement of claim has been filed by the workmen, wherein it is
stated that that they were working with the management of M/s Ranbaxy
Ltd. on the post of Peons, Safai Karamcharis, telephone Operators, and
Photocopy Operators etc. for last many years at the salary of Rs.2670/- each
per month, except workman Sh. Ashok Kumar who was drawing wages lastly
@ Rs.2840/- pm. . It is stated that the work being done by the workmen is of
regular nature, which is called permanent work. It is stated that the
workmen were appointed by chief Manager of M/s Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd and since their appointment, workmen were continuously
providing their service. It is further stated that facility of P.F. and ESI is being
provided to them and in record of both the departments, workmen have been
shown as employees of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. It is alleged that
the managements in order to exploit the workmen, have not provided
uniforms, bonus, City allowance, traveling allowance, and even they pay the
less wages than minimum wages as declared by the Govt of NCT, Delhi. It is
further stated that the managements are not giving weekly off and annual
leave at par with the regular employees.
3. It is further stated that the management of M/s Ranbaxy, in order to
deprive the workmen of facilities, has engaged contractors M/s Amar Singh,
M/s Neha by a fake agreement. It is stated that the said contractors do not
come in the organisation to work. It is stated that the attendance of workmen
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 2 of 21
is marked by principal management. It is stated that principal management is
harming the workmen financially and mentaly by violating the provisions of
Section 7, 10 and 25(5) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970 (sic). It is further stated that regular employees of management are
being paid wages @ Rs.7954/-. It is prayed that the workmen be regularised
with M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd on the principle of "equal work-equal
pay" from the date of their appointments. It is further prayed that
management be directed to comply with the provisions of Section 33 of I.D.
Act and not to terminate or transfer any workmen during the pendency of the
dispute. It is further stated that demand notice dated 21.4.03 was sent to the
management by Speed Post but no reply has been received.
4. In the written statement filed by the management of M/s Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd, it is stated that there is no employer-employee relationship
between the parties. It is stated that none of the claimants was ever employed
by the management. It is stated that claimants were employed by various
contractors and had been deputed by their respective contractors to
accomplish some jobs at the premises of management.
5. It is further stated in the written statement that Union namely all India
General Mazdoor Trade Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute qua the
claimants. There is no legal and valid authorization in favour of the said
union to represent the claimants and hence, the claim is liable for outright
rejection. It is further stated that Secretary (Labour), Govt of NCT of Delhi
has no legal and valid power to make the reference. It is stated in the written
statement that there is no legal and valid espousal in the present case.
6. It is denied that claimants are working with the management for
many years. It is further stated that claimants were never employed by the
management and on making enquiries, it has been revealed that the claimants
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 3 of 21
have been employed by different contractors namely M/s Amar Singh, M/s
Neha Enterprises and M/s D S Rawat and they have been working at the
premises of the management as employees of various contractors, to whom
the management has assigned the job. It is stated that the management was
not responsible to provide the claimants with any statutory benefits but since
the contractors were not having their PF and ESI code numbers, the
management had allowed the contractors to deposit the contributions of their
employees in the code numbers of the management, with a view to help them.
It is stated that the claimants are not entitled to the statutory benefits from the
management as they are the employees of the contractors and cannot be
equated with the regular employees of the management. It is denied that
claimants are paid less than minimum wages as prescribed by GNCT of
Delhi. It is stated that the management has been informed by the contractors
that they are paying more than minimum wages to their employees including
the claimants. It is further stated that the claimants are governed by the rules
prevalent in their respective contractors and cannot be compared with the
regular employees of the management in respect of the working days etc. It is
submitted that the contract between the above contractors and the
management was a valid contract. It is stated that some of the claimants were
working under direct supervision and control of above contractors. It is
further stated that the management is duly registered as a principal employer
for engaging the contractors and the contractors are also having licenses as
per law. It is denied that attendance of claimants are marked by the
management. It is stated that their wages are paid by their respective
contractors. It is stated that by depositing the amount of ESI and PF in the
code numbers of the management, the claimants do not become employees of
management. It is denied that any resolution was passed in any meeting of the
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 4 of 21
union and claimants have not even given the details of the alleged resolution.
7. In the written statement filed by management no.2 M/s Amar Singh,
it is stated that claimants are working under direct supervision and control of
the management no.2 and it is management no.2, who is paying wages and
marking attendance of claimants. It is submitted that there is no legal and
valid espousal in the present case as required under the Industrial Disputes
Act. It is submitted that the claimants are working on contractual job, as per
contracts between management no.2 and management no.1. It is denied that
claimants are not getting weekly and annual holidays as alleged. It is
submitted that claimants are getting weekly off and yearly holidays as per
rules and they cannot be compared with the regular employees of
management no.1 in respect of working days and holidays. It is submitted
that the contract between managements no.1 and 2 is a valid contract and that
the attendance of claimants are marked by management no.2. It is submitted
that since, there was no ESI and PF Code with management no.2, therefore,
management no.1 permitted management no.2 to deduct and deposit the PF
and ESI contributions with the code numbers of the management no.1, so the
claimants are not deprived of statutory benefits. It is denied that any
resolution was passed in any meeting of the Union and that no details of the
alleged resolution have been given.
8. In the written statement filed by management no.3 M/s Neha
Enterprises, it is stated that some of the claimants are working under direct
supervision and control of the management no.3 and it is management no.3
who is paying wages and marking attendance of claimants. It is submitted
that there is no legal and valid espousal in the present case as required under
the Industrial Disputes Act. It is denied that claimants are working with
management as Peons, Safai Karamchari, Telephone Operators and
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 5 of 21
Photocopy Operators for many years as alleged. It is denied that claimants are
not getting weekly and annual holidays as alleged. It is submitted that
claimants are getting weekly off and yearly holidays as per rules and they
cannot be compared with the regular employees of management no.1 in
respect of working days and holidays. It is denied that claimants are paid less
than minimum wages as prescribed by the government. It is submitted that
the contract between management no.1 and 3 is a valid contract and that the
attendance of claimants are marked by management no.3. It is submitted that
since there was no ESI and PF Code with management no.3, management
no.1 permitted management no.3 to deduct and deposit the PF and ESI
contributions with the code numbers of the management no.1 so that the
claimants are not deprived of statutory benefits. It is denied that any
resolution was passed in any meeting of the Union and no details of the
alleged resolution have been given.
9. Management no.4 M/s. D S Rawat also has filed separate written
statement, wherein they have made similar submissions as are made by
management no.3. In addition, it is submitted that claimants namely Sh.
Arvind s/o Sh. Dhyan Singh and Sh. Kan Singh s/o Sh. Soban Singh have
submitted their resignation, to management no.4 and the same were accepted.
It is submitted that claimants cannot claim parity with the employees of
management no.1.
10. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issue were framed
by Ld. Predecessor on 22.11.2004:-
1. Whether the cause of workmen has been duly espoused? OPW
2. Whether the workmen shown in Annexure A are entitled for
regularisation? OPW
3. Terms of reference.
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 6 of 21
11. 13 Workmen have examined themselves as WW 1 to WW 13. In
their affidavits filed by way of examination-in-chief, they have reiterated
the contents of statement of claim.
12. In cross-examination, WW 1, WW 3, WW4, WW 5, WW 7, WW 8,
WW 9, WW 10, and WW 12 have stated that the matter was taken up first
time on 25.3.2002 in the office of Union. It is deposed that they were
members of the Union at the time of meeting. It is further deposed that 14
claimants were member of the Union at that time. It is deposed that meeting
of the Union took place to espouse the cause of the workmen. It is admitted
that they have not filed copy of espousal in the court.
13. It is deposed in cross-examination that claimants do not have
relations with M/s Amar Singh, M/s Neha Enterprises and M/s DS Rawat. It
is deposed that they have not seen any agreement between the management
and contractor but they have been told by management in the year 2001 that
there was an agreement. It is further deposed that contractors namely Amar
Singh, Neha and DS Rawat were working with management but they did not
have any document to show in this regard.
14. It is admitted by above WWs, in cross-examination, that their salary
was being paid in cash against signatures. It is admitted that register having
signatures of claimants against the payment of salary does not pertain to
signatures of employees of Ranbaxy. They could not say if employees of
Ranbaxy were being paid the salary by way of cheque and by crediting the
amount in their account or not. It is admitted that register, having signatures
of claimants against the payment of salary, does not pertain to the signature
of employees of Ranbaxy. Same was their reply as regards attendance. It is
admitted that claimants were being paid minimum wages. It is admitted
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 7 of 21
that they were never provided with appointment letter and that
claimants never demanded for the same. It is admitted that management
of Ranbaxy issued appointment letters to its employees. It is denied that
they were working under the supervision and control of the contractor. It is
denied that claimants have no relationship of employer and employee with
management of M/s Ranbaxy.
15. It is further admitted by WW 11 Sh. Abadh Kishore, in his cross-
examination, that when the salary is paid to him, he is required to sign a
register, on which there is a stamp of Ranbaxy and that salary of regular
employee is transferred directly to the bank. He has deposed that Amar Singh
is the Supervisor of the company. It is admitted that he has not seen his
appointment letter or his pay slip but he knows that said Mr. Amar Singh gets
salary from the company. He did not know why the name of Sh. Amar Singh
and D S Rawat was mentioned in the statement of claim. He has deposed that
he is not being paid minimum wages declared by Delhi Government. He has
admitted that he has not filed any complaint with Minimum Wage Authority.
It is denied that he is not working under supervision and control of any
officer of Ranbaxy Laboratories. He does not know if Ranbaxy Laboratories
has any registration certificate for employing contract labour.
16. WW 11 has deposed, in his cross-examination, that meeting of the
Union was held on 23.3.02 and 45 other workers were present in the meeting.
It is deposed meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Sh. Pramod Kumar
Rajput and copy of resolution is Ex. WW1/67. It is deposed that original
resolution must be with the Union.
17. WW 13 Sh. Khagan Dass, in his cross-examination, has admitted
that he was never issued any appointment letter by Ranbaxy
Laboratories. It is further admitted that he was not getting salary as per
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 8 of 21
salary register maintained by management company. It is denied that he has
no employer- employee relationship with management of M/s Ranbaxy.
18. WW 14 Sh. Pramod Kumar Rajput, President of All Indian General
Majdoor Trade Union has deposed in his affidavit that claimants are active
members of the Union. It is deposed that on 11.4.01 claimants held a group
meeting and told about their problems. In the said meeting all the claimants
gave authority letter to send demand letter and represent them. Copy of
authority letter has been proved as EX. WW1/1. It is deposed that he sent
demand notice to the management and raised the matter before conciliation
officer.
19. In his cross-examination, WW 14 has deposed that he has not brought
original of Ex. WW1/167. He has stated voluntarily that original has been
submitted in another court in connection with another case and he can
produce the original by summoning the same from the said file. He has
deposed that he could produce minutes of meeting held on 25.3.02. He did
not remember whether the said minutes were signed by him or not. It is
deposed that an application from workers to convene meeting must have been
referred in the said meeting dated 25.3.02. It is denied that no such meeting
was held. It is denied that resolution was not passed on 25.3.02. It is further
denied that workmen are not members of the Union and that no document in
that regard has been placed on record.
20. Management has examined Sh. Mukesh Gupta, its Personnel Officer
as MW 1. In his affidavit, he has deposed that none of the claimants was
employed with the management No.1. He has further deposed that
management has an established procedure of obtaining application with the
application form filled in by the candidate in his own hand writing. Specimen
proforma of the same has been exhibited as Ex. MW1/1. He has also proved
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 9 of 21
copies of attendance register of the management as EX MW1/3. It is deposed
that management no.1 entered into a contract agreement with contractors M/s
Gulshan Babbar, M/s Ravi Hastwala, M/s HarakSingh, M/s Amar Singh, M/s
Neha Hospitality Services Pvt Ltd., M/s Dilbar Singh Rawat, M/s Anil Jain
for providing services. Copies of the contract with these contractors have
been proved as Ex. MW1/5 collectively. It is deposed that contractors have
been providing services to management no.1. Copies of leave applications of
employees of management no.1 and its salary registers crediting salary to the
employees of management no.1 have been proved as EX MW1/6. It is
deposed that contractors used to maintain their own attendance sheet, which
is, distinct from the attendance sheet of the management no.1. Copies of
attendance sheet in respect of contract labour including the claimants herein,
have been proved collectively as Ex. MW1/7. It is deposed that contractors
used to pay wages to their labour after obtaining their signatures on the wage
registers. Copies of wage register of the employees of contractors have been
proved as Ex. MW1/8 collectively. Copies of ESI challan in respect of
various contractors have been proved as Ex. MW1/9 collectively. Copies of
PF deductions in respect of various contractors have been proved as Ex.
MW1/10 collectively. It is deposed that contractors used to raise bills on the
management no.1. Copies of said bills in respect of contractor M/s Dilbar
Singh Rawat are Ex. MW1/13.
21. In his cross-examination, MW 1 has deposed that he could not say
whether any newspaper notice was given for vacancy of sweeper etc in 1993-
94. He did not have any document to show that peons and sweepers were
called for interview by the management. He could not show from the record
if vacancy for the post of sweeper or peons was advertised. It is admitted that
there are jobs of peons and sweepers in the management and such jobs are
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 10 of 21
being done on day-to-day basis by the peons and sweepers. It is deposed that
PF deduction is made by the management from the salary of the employees
working in the management. It is further deposed that as on date, they have
no employee, who is covered under ESI. It is denied that workman Ashok
Kumar has been working with management w.e.f. 1.3.93, Mahesh Kumar
w.e.f. 7.3.94 and Sh. Khagan Dass w.e.f. 1.3.93. It is admitted that PF of the
workmen is deposited in account of Ranbaxy Laboratories as Principal
Employer. It is denied that M/s Ranbaxy used to deposit PF contribution of
workmen as their employer. It is deposed that as per record filed in the court,
Amar Singh was not a contractor of management no.1 in the year 1993 to
1995. It is further deposed that there was no contractor in management no.1
in the year 1993 in the name of DS Rawat and Neha Enterprises. It is
admitted that Ranbaxy Employees Provident Fund Trust is managed by M/s
Ranbaxy Laboratories and Provident Fund of all the employees of
management is deposited in that fund. It is admitted that he has been working
in management no.1 since 1991 and his PF contribution is deposited in
Ranbaxy Employees PF Trust. It is denied that Amar Singh was the employee
of management no.1 as an Electrician and was paid wages of Rs.4000-4200/-.
It is admitted that ESI Contribution of workmen in this case used to be
deposited in Code No.11/1243/34. It is admitted that employer's code of
Ranbaxy is 11-1243-34. It is admitted that workmen in this case are doing
their duty with the management, but he has voluntarily stated "as employee of
contractors".
22. At the request of management, MW 1 was recalled for further
examination-in-chief as regards compromise with seven workmen. He has
tendered copies of settlements with these workmen as EX. MW1/C-1 to Ex.
MW1/C-7. These documents were objected to for workmen for want of
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 11 of 21
originals. On this aspect, MW 1 was cross-examined, in which he has denied
that these workmen have not settled with the management. It is denied that
the alleged settlement shown to be on Form H was not signed by seven
workmen or that blank documents were got signed. It is denied that these
workmen were employees of management no.1 and that they were forced to
leave the organisation and were made to sign blank documents. MW 1 was
not aware whether copy of the settlement was sent to Labour Commissioner,
Regional Labour Commissioner and Asst. Labour Commissioner or not. MW
1 was not aware whether payment of settled amount has been made to the
workers by management no.1. However, after seeing cheque no.343834
issued to Rupesh Rawat, MW 1 stated that payment has been made by
management no.1. He stated voluntarily that agreement is tripartite
agreement. It is admitted that workman has filed complaint against the
management in relation to his illegal termination but he could not tell its
nature. It is denied that entire settlement is a sham and an attempt to defeat
the interest of justice.
23. On 04.02.11, on an application of management, MW 1 was allowed
to be re-examined-in-chief and was also allowed to be cross-examined on the
application of workmen in this regard.
24. In his examination-in-chief, MW 1 has produced original of some
pages of Ex. MW1/5, Ex. MW1/7, Ex. MW1/9, Ex. MW1/10. Left out pages
of these exhibits were marked as A to E.
25. In his cross-examination, MW 1 has deposed that he has neither
executed the agreement Ex. MW1/5 brought by him on that day nor he was
witness to agreement. It is denied that workmen in the present case have no
relation with agreements. It was admitted that names of the workmen are not
appearing in any of the agreements. He has stated voluntarily that contract is
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 12 of 21
between Ranbaxy and Contractor and the contractors have all their rights to
employ the employees on their own. It is denied that these agreements are
sham and bogus. It is admitted that on Ex. Mw1/7, which is an attendance
register for the period from August 2000 to June 2001, there is no
endorsement or seal of any contractor. It is admitted that Jagdish Singh was
working as peon in Ranbaxy long ago. It is deposed that management No.1
does not have any class IV employee as on date.
26. I have heard arguments from Sh. Rajesh Anand, Ld. Counsel/AR for
workmen and Sh. Raj Birbal and Ms. Raavi Birbal, Ld. Counsels/ARs for
management. I have perused the entire record including also written
arguments filed for workmen. During arguments, it has been inter-alia
submitted for workmen that only 08 workmen namely S/Sh.(1) Ashok
Kumar, (2) Khagan Dass, (3) Awadh Kishore, (4) Gopal, (5) Birendra Yadav,
(6) Pritam Singh, (7) Harish Chand, and (8) Ramesh Ram are contesting the
present dispute. My findings on the issues are as under:-
27. Findings on issue 1
Issue no.1 is Whether the cause of workmen has been duly espoused?
OPW. WW 11 Sh. Avadh Kishore in his cross-examination has deposed that
meeting of the Union was held on 23.3.02 and 45 other workers were present
in the meeting. It is deposed meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Sh.
Pramod Kumar Rajput and copy of resolution is Ex. WW1/67.
28. In view of deposition of WW 11 and resolution Ex. WW1/67, it is
held that the cause of the workmen has been duly espoused.
29. Moreover, in M/s Payen and Talbros Ltd., vs Hans Raj and others
DLT 1968 Vol. IV Page 130 it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:-
that the language of section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act in
itself is wide enough to cover a dispute between an employer and
a single employee but having regard to the scheme of the Act and
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 13 of 21
the purpose for which it was enacted and the use of the word
"workmen" in this definition clause, industrial dispute has been
construed by the courts to mean a collective dispute, i.e. a dispute
where workmen as a body or a considerable section of them make
a common cause with the individual workman and raise a demand.
It would not appear that the condition of an espousal or of a body
or a considerable section of workmen making a common cause
with the particular dispute arises only when individual dispute per
se is of the nature of an individual dispute concerning a particular
workman as opposed to collective dispute involving all the
workmen. Where the dispute which was referred to the
Tribunal related to gratuity scheme sought to be introduced
for the benefits of all the workmen employed in a particular
company, it was per se an industrial dispute. No espousal or
support was needed for such a dispute. (emphasis added)
30. The above judgment implies that espousal is not necessary in case of
bulk workmen. Therefore, even if it is presumed that that there is no proper
espousal in this case, the same would not affect the case of the workmen
adversely. Issue no.1 is decided accordingly.
31. Findings on issue no.2
Issue no.2 is Whether the workmen shown in Annexure A are entitled
for regularisation? OPW.
32. Workmen have claimed regularisation of their service with
management no.1 M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. In their statement of claim,
workmen have stated that Principal Employer and Contractor have been
harming the workmen financially as well as mentally by violating the
provisions of Section 7 and 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition
)Act, 1970, and Rule 25(V) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. It is also the case of workmen that they were
employed by management No.1 and not by contractors.
33. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and Workmen and others,
1969, AIR SC 243. In that judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
follows:-
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 14 of 21
From the provisions of Section 10 (1) (a) and 10 (4) of the
Act it appears that while it is open to the appropriate
government to refer the dispute or any matter appearing to
be connected therewith for adjudication. The Tribunal must
confine its adjudication to the points of dispute referred and
matters incidental thereto. In other words, the Tribunal is
not free to enlarge the dispute referred to it but must
confine its attention to the point specifically mentioned and
anything which is incidental thereto. The word 'incidental'
means according to Webster's New World Dictionary;
"happening or likely to happen as a result of or in
connection, with something more important; being an
incident; casual, hence, secondary or minor, but usually
associated."
"Something incidental to a dispute" must therefore mean
something happening as a result of or in connection with the
dispute or associate with the dispute. The dispute is the
fundamental thing, while something incidental thereto is an
adjunct to it. Something, incidental, therefore, cannot cut at
the root of the main thing to which it is an adjunct.
34. In view of above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Tribunal
will confine its adjudication on the issue of regularisation as referred by
appropriate government and on matter incidental thereto.
35. It is admitted by WWs in their cross-examination that claimants
were being paid minimum wages. It is further admitted that they were never
provided with appointment letter and that claimants never demanded for
the same. It is admitted that management of Ranbaxy issued
appointment letters to its employees.
36. MW 1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that none of the
claimants was ever employed with management No.1 at any point of time.
MW 1 has further deposed that management has an established procedure of
obtaining application with the application form filled in by the candidate in
his own hand writing. A specimen proforma of the same has been proved as
MW1/1. It is deposed by MW 1 in his examination-in-chief that eligible
applicants are called for interview by the management of M/s Ranbaxy
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 15 of 21
Laboratories Limited and subject to vacancies and requirements, successful
candidates are offered the post of staff of supervisor as the case may be.
Specimen proforma of the same have been proved collectively as Ex.
MW1/2.
37. In Hindustan Shipyard Limited and others vs. D.P. Sambasiva Rao
and others, (1996) 7 SCC 499, Hon'ble Apex court enunciated that the
process of regularisation involves regular appointment which can be done
only in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The directions of the High
Court for regularisation of medical officers engaged de hors the regular
procedure was set aside.
38. In Jaidev vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University & Another,
102, (2003) DLT 234 (DB), Hon'ble High Court arrived at the conclusion
that no direction can be given to bye-pass the regular selection process even
in the face of the existence of regular vacancies.
39. MW 1 has narrated the procedure for recruitment of employees on
regular basis. There is no challenge to the said procedure on behalf of
workmen. No application form for the purpose of seeking employment with
management No.1 has been brought on record by workmen. It is not the case
of workmen that they were called for interview. As admitted by WWs in
their cross-examination, no appointment letter was issued to them and
they never demanded for the same, while the same used to be issued to
the employees of management No.1. Hence, workmen have not been able to
prove that they went through the prescribed procedure for appointment on
regular basis. Thus, in view of above propositons of law, no direction can be
issued to bye-pass the regular selection process.
40. Though, workmen have been working for management, they have to
go through the regular selection process for regular appointments i.e.
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 16 of 21
application for appointment, interview, selection of successful candidates and
issuance of appointment letter etc. for claiming regularisation. Workmen have
neither gone through these steps for regular appointment nor they have got
any appointment letter to show that they were appointed by the management
No.1 on regular basis. Thus, they cannot claim regularisation with
management No.1 irrespective of the fact whether they are employees of
management No.1 or contractor.
41. In Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar (Dr.) vs. State of Maharashtra &
Others, 1994 II CLR 1113, it was observed that the appellant was not entitled
to claim that she should have been deemed to have been regularised as she
had been working without break for nine years.
42. In view of above judgment, plea of workmen that they have been
working with management No.1 continuously since their appointments, will
not entitle them for regularization.
43. As regards claim of workman regarding equal pay for equal work, in
para 6(b) of statement of claim, it is stated by workmen that some regular
employees working with the management at the same post as that of
workmen herein, are getting wages of Rs.7954/-, whereas the workmen
herein are being paid wages @ Rs.2670/- pm. and thus, they are entitled for
equal pay for equal wages as per Rule 25(V) of Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. However, no documentary evidence has
been produced by the workmen to substantiate their plea that regular
employees of management no.1 are getting wages of Rs.7954/- per month.
44. In the written submissions filed on behalf of workmen, it is stated
that presently, the workmen are paid a sum of Rs.5900/- per month/
Rs.5200/- per month in hand after deductions, whereas the permanent
peons and sweepers now designated as office attendants, are now paid a
I.D. No. 62/04 Page 17 of 21
sum of around Rs.16000/- per month in hand. In the written submissions, it
is further submitted that all the documents pertaining to accounts and all the
facts pertaining to the payment of salary to Peon/Sweeper/attendant is within
the knowledge of management no.1 but deliberately, with malafide intention
and despite repeated directions passed by Ld. Predecessor Court,
management no.1 did not bring on record relevant documents and facts
pertaining to payment of salaries, so that true and correct salary might come
on record and, therefore, adverse inference be drawn against management
no.1 in this regard.
45. It is worth noting that MW 1 Sh. Mukesh Gupta in his cross-
examination has deposed that management No.1 does not have any class IV
employee as on date.
46. In Surendra Nagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amar Singh vs.
2006 SCC (L&S) 38, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
As regards non-compliance with Section 25-G and 25-H
suffice it to say that the witness examined by the appellant
has stated that no seniority list was maintained by the
department of daily-wagers. In the absence of regular
employment of the workmen, the appellant was not
expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged
on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the
respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his
so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non- compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entitle the court ot draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been produced. (emphasis added)
47. Since, it is the case of management no.1 in evidence of MW 1 in cross-examination that management No.1 does not have any class IV employee as on date, no adverse inference can be drawn against management I.D. No. 62/04 Page 18 of 21 no.1 in this regard, in view of above proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
48. As per submissions of workmen, the posts of Peons and Sweepers have now been designated as Office Attendant. However, there is nothing on record that alleged office attendants perform the same type of work as the present claimants. Proviso to Rule 25(V) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 is reproduced as below:-
Provided that in the case of any disagreement with regard to the type of work, the same shall be decided by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central).
49. In State of Haryana and Others vs. Charanjit Singh and Others etc AIR 2006 SC 161, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
Undoubtedly, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work for equal value. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case. ............... A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of principle of "equal pay for equal work"
requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. Thus, normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. (emphasis added)
50. In view of above proposition of law and Proviso to Rule 25(V) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971, the issue whether office attendant and present workmen perform equal work, as tested I.D. No. 62/04 Page 19 of 21 on anvil of function and responsibility, can be decided by expert body i.e. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). However, no such report of Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner has been given in this regard in the present case, which is a lacunae in the claim of workmen regarding equal pay for equal work at par with regular employees of management no.1.
51. Moreover, in State of Haryana and others Vs. Jasmer Singh and others, (1996) 11 SCC 77, it has been opined that daily-wagers should not be equated with regular workman and can at best claim payment of minimum wages only.
52. In view of above proposition of law and facts and circumstances of the case, claim of workman regarding 'equal pay for equal work' at par with regular employees of management no.1 does not survive.
53. In view of above discussion, it is held that workmen cannot be allowed to seek regularisation with management no.1. Thus, it is held that workmen are not entitled for regularisation with management no.1 at par with its regular employees as they have not gone through the prescribed process for recruitment of regular employees with management of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
54. Findings on issue no.3 Issue no.3 is As per terms of reference. Terms of reference are ''Whether the services of workman shown in Annexure A are entitled for regularisation on the post as per Annexure A w.e.f. their initial date of joining in services with all the consequential benefits at par regular employees, if so, what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
55. In view of my findings on issue no.2, it is held that workman are not entitled for regularisation w.e.f. their initial date of joining in services with all I.D. No. 62/04 Page 20 of 21 the consequential benefits at par regular employees of management no.1 and no directions are necessary in this respect. Thus, workmen are not entitled to the relief claimed. Award is passed accordingly and reference is answered in these terms.
56. Copy of this award be sent to GNCT of Delhi for publication. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open courts on 06.03.2012. (MAHAVIR SINGHAL) Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Karkardooma Courts, Delhi I.D. No. 62/04 Page 21 of 21