Delhi District Court
Suman Devi vs The Department Of Women And Child ... on 5 August, 2025
ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
ID No. 171/2018
CNR No. DLCT13-003762-2018
Suman Devi
D/o Sh. Surinder Kumar,
H. No.74, Pocket No. A3
Sector 4, Rohini
Delhi-110085 ..... Workman
Versus
1. The Director,
Department Of Women And Child Development,
Canning Lane,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Managing Director,
M/s Intelligent Communication System India Limited
Administrative Building,
First Floor, Above Post Office,
Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III,
New Delhi-110020. .... Management
Date of institution 27.07.2018
Order reserved on 19.07.2025
Date of Award 05.08.2025
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
MANAN
GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:56:30
+0530
Award 1 of 31
ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare
AWARD
1. Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of
Delhi has referred this dispute vide F.24/()/Lab/SD/2017-8482
dated 17.04.2018 for adjudication with following terms of the
reference:
"Whether the services of Ms. Nisha and 49 Ors. as
per (Annexe-A) have been discontinued by the
management as per the terms and conditions of their
appointment issued by the ICSIL or their services
have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by
the management in violation of section 33(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and if so, to what relief
are they entitled what directions are necessary in this
respect?"
Statement of Claim
2. In her claim, workman has stated that she initially joined as
Aganwari worker in the respondent management no. 1
Department with effect from 11.09.2007 at a monthly honorarium of Rs.2500/- on the condition that she can hold the post till she attains the age of 60. Honorarium has been increased from time to time.
3. It is stated that while she was working as Aganwari worker she had been engaged as Aganwari supervisor with effect from 20.07.2016 in the respondent management No. 1 department. At monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- and her services as Aganwari supervisor have been discontinued with effect from 25.09.2017 Digitally signed her last drawn wages were Rs. 17,862/-. GAUTAM MANAN by GAUTAM MANAN Date:
2025.08.06 22:56:35 +0530 Award 2 of 31 ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
4. It is stated that the appointment letter dated 11.09.2007 for Aganwari worker was issued by respondent no. 1, the appointment letter dated 20.07.2016 for Aganwari supervisor as well as letter dated 25.09.2017 of discontinuation of her services from that post were given by respondent No.2. It is mentioned that she worked as Aganwari worker or supervisor with the respondent no. 1 department under the dictates and guidance of the officials of the respondent no. 1 and responsibility of respondent no. 2 was only a recruitment agency and to supply man power to the respondent no. 1 on outsourced basis.
5. It is stated that respondent no. 2 issued an advertisement for recruiting Aganwari Supervisors to which the workman responded and sent her application for consideration. Respondent no.2 conducted a written examination and the workman came out of it successfully then the high officials of respondent no. 1, bereft of a single official from respondent no. 2, conducted a thorough and grueling interview and selected the workman for the said post then, strangely the respondent no.2 came into the scene and issued a appointment letter dated 20.07.2016 engaging the claimant on purely contractual/ Digitally outsourcing basis. signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:56:40
+0530
Award 3 of 31
ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare
6. It is stated that workman worked very sincerely and honestly and there was not an iota of allegation regarding the performance during her tenure but the respondent no.2 all of a sudden issued a letter dated 25.09.2017 to the workman informing her that her services from the post of Aganwari supervisor have been discontinued with effect from 01.10.2017 on the ground that the respondent no.1 has started to engage Aganwari supervisors on regular basis.
7. It is stated that workman after having the essential and desirable qualifications and experience as desired by the Department and meeting the age requirements and after putting significant years of work as Aganwari worker and after becoming successful in the interview similar to that conducted by DSSSB joined as Supervisors and also completed more than one year service with remarkable performance without any stigma. As such, any move to flush her out of the employment without following the cannons of justice and mandatory provisions of service laws is illegal and unjustified.
8. It is stated that essential qualification for the job is graduation but preferable qualification is graduation in Child Development or Nutrition or Home Science or Social Work. It is stated that workman has possessed that preferable qualification such as graduation in those preferred areas as Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:56:45 +0530
Award 4 of 31
ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
mentioned above, where as the candidates selected by the DSSSB have only a normal graduation and in most cases they have engineering degrees which are unrelated to the jobs they have to do. By mere mathematical skills, aspirants qualify the written examination conducted by the DSSSB which is suitable for mathematical aptitude candidates depriving the candidates from social science background occupy the jobs meant for social welfare by replacing the claimant, who has requisite degree in social work, home science etc.
9. Workman averred that the number of vacancies advertised by DSSSB was 290 and out of that, 25% of vacancies are reserved for Aganwari Workers who are matriculate and having 10 years experience but it came to light under this reserved category, not even a single Aganwari Worker was selected by DSSSB. These 25% of vacancies can be filled up by the workman who has 10 years experience as Aganwari Worker.
10. Workman has submitted that list that proposed by DSSSB shows that the candidates selected for Aganwari Supervisor posts are not graduates in Child Development or Nutrition or Home Science of Social Work from recognized university or a female matriculate with 10 years experience as an Aganwari worker, with a desirable qualification of one year practical experience in the field of social work in any Government Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:56:50 +0530
Award 5 of 31
ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare
Department / recognized voluntary organization in a regular paid capacity.
11.Workman submitted that an artificial name tag of contractual employment has been attached to the workman to get rid of her whims and fancies of the respondent no.1. The nature of job which the workman was doing, the instructions which she received from the Department on regular basis, disciplinary rules applicable to her, the wages she received, the leaves she applied - establishes that it is a regular job having a sham contract was wrapped all over it.
12. It is submitted that an Industrial Dispute regarding the regularization of the services of the workman along with similarly situated employees was pending before the Ld. Deputy Labour Commissioner and during the pendency of the said dispute, the respondents terminated the services of the claimant. It is stated that as per Section 33 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, management cannot terminate the services of the workmen and hence, the termination of workman is illegal and unjustified.
13.It is further stated that workman has put more than one year of continuous service as Supervisor and before that 10 years of continuous service as Aganwari worker, without any break.Digitally signed by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:56:55 +0530
Award 6 of 31
ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
Hence, Section 25 F is applicable in the instant case. As the termination of the claimant has not followed the mandatory stipulated conditions as laid down in Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the termination of the services of the claimant is illegal and unjustified.
14. It is stated that during the tenure of the workman as Aganwari supervisor and worker the respondents have never issued any memo or charge-sheet or conducted and domestic query regarding her performance and workman has not resigned from the post of Aganwari worker while getting appointment as Aganwari supervisor in 2016 as such, her lien survives in the post of Aganwari worker. She wrote letters to the respondent no.1 seeking reinstatement as Aganwari worker, reserving her right to claim the post of Supervisor in court of law. But the respondent no. 1 maintained deaf silence.
15.It is stated that workman is unemployed since the date of her termination and despite her best efforts she could not get any alternative employment and hence, it is prayed that an award be passed in favour of workman and against respondents holding that her termination is illegal and unjustified and direct the respondent no. 1 to reinstate the workman in the post of "Aganwari Supervisor" with full back wages and attended Digitally signed benefits. GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN Date: MANAN 2025.08.06 22:57:00 +0530 Award 7 of 31 ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare Written Statement of Department/ Respondent no.1
16.Respondent no.1 has stated that workman was working with the Department on honorary post of Aganwari Worker on fixed honorarium and as such, she was neither receiving salary nor wages. It is stated that workman left the honorary job on her own sweet will to join non-permanent and temporary job of Supervisor on outsource contractual basis through respondent no.2.
17. It is stated that workman joined the Department as an outsource contractual employee on specific terms and conditions against the post of Supervisor and her engagement was valid till the time regular incumbent are appointed to the post of Supervisor or till the end of contract period whichever was earlier. When regular incumbents joined on the posts of Supervisor, engagement of the workman was discontinued by ICSIL (respondent no.2) but workman now wants to join back on the honorary post of Aganwari Worker / Supervisor. It is stated that honorary positions of Aganwari Workers are no more vacant and as per rules, the same cannot be kept vacant when any social worker / honorary worker leaves the job.
18.It is stated that Department had published an advertisement for engagement of Aganwari Workers under ICDS and the workman had an opportunity to apply for the same. It is Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:57:05 +0530
Award 8 of 31
ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
submitted that DSSSB which is the notified recruitment agency for the post of Supervisor initiated and completed the regular selection process for the posts of Supervisors and the workman was having an opportunity to apply for the same, but she did not apply / could not clear the selection process and now, she wants to join as a backdoor entry as Aganwari Worker/ Supervisor without following the due procedure laid down by the law.
19.It is stated that workman failed in fulfilling an utmost important social service, and she was under moral obligation for providing vital interventions to address the issue of under nutrition among the most vulnerable sections of the society i.e. children under 6 years, pregnant women, lactating mothers and adolescents girls which she failed to fulfill as she left the job abruptly without giving proper notice to the Department for making alternate arrangement. Thus, the workman left the Honorary job of Aganwari Worker without information.
20.It is stated that workmen applied for contractual job of ICSI Ltd. without any intimation to the Department, and they joined the contractual job without any permission. Workmen came back when to the Department after a lapse of some 2 years when they were removed from the contractual Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:57:10 +0530
Award 9 of 31
ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare
employment by the outsource service provided agency ICSIL. Due to sudden runaway of workmen from the important social service job of Aganwari Worker, underprivileged children of Delhi suffered a lot. As far as the rule position is concerned any Aganwari Worker who remained absent from duties for more than 3 months stand removed from honorary service of Aganwari Worker.
21. It is submitted that the post of Aganwari Worker is not considered a civil post as clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment in Case No. Appeal (Civil) 4953- 4957 of 1998 titled "State of Karnataka &Ors Vs. Ameerbi & Ors". The workman was initially engaged on the honorary post of Aganwari Worker to work in Aganwari Centre (AWC) under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Integrated Chid Development Services (ICDS) of Government of India at the monthly honorarium of Rs. 2,500/- which was increased being revised from time to time. At present the same is Rs. 9,678/-. It is stated that engagement of workman is temporary and her position cannot be equated with any other position under the Govt. of India and no legal dispute of any kind shall be acceptable for this voluntary honorary work. The service of an Aganwari worker can be discontinued at any time without assigning any reason. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:57:19 +0530
Award 10 of 31
ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
22. It is submitted that workman on her choice, withdrew from the post of Aganwari Worker upon being short-listed for the post of contractual Supervisor by ICSIL and was placed with management of respondent no.1 to work on purely contractual and outsourced basis under ICDS. Services of the workman as Aganwari Supervisor was discontinued w.e.f. 01.10.2017 following completion of selection process of Aganwari Supervisors on regular basis by Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and upon receiving the dossiers of selected candidates and subsequently joining of new incumbents in the Department. It is stated that entire procedure was done as per the settled legal position by Hon'ble Apex court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (Supreme Court-2006). Other averments made in the statement of claim have been denied and dismissal of the claim has been prayed for. Written Statement of Respondent no.2
23.It is stated on behalf of respondent no.2 that the workman has got no locus-standi to file the present claim since the workman was appointed on purely contractual basis for fixed period w.e.f the date of joining till the end of the contract/work order awarded to respondent no.2 by the Department. It is stated that at the time of appointment workman had gone through the terms and conditions mentioned in the Letter for contractual Engagement dated Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:57:25 +0530
Award 11 of 31
ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare
20.07.2016 and same had been also explained in detail by the respondent and after understanding the terms and conditions incorporated on the said appointment letter signed on the same. Thus, workman admitted all terms and conditions on appointment letter, and she is bound to follow it. Hence, the present claim deserves to be dismissed. Issues
24.On 28.11.2019, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the claimant is not a workman as defined in Section 2(s) ID Act, 1940? (OPM 1).
2. Whether dispute is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k) ID Act, 1940? (OPM 1)
3. Whether the claimant has no locus standi to file the present claim petition against management no.2? (OPM 2).
4. Terms of reference.
5. Relief.
Workman's Evidence
25. In order to prove her entitlement, workman examined herself as WW1 and tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.WW1/A. She deposed on the lines of her claim. Management/ Respondent's Evidence
26. Respondent no.1 examined MW1 Nafees Ahmed who tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.M1W1/A. He proved copy of a letter dated 25.09.2017 for discontinuation Digitally signed of services of outsourced supervisors issued by respondent GAUTAM MANAN by GAUTAM MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:57:30 +0530
Award 12 of 31
ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
no.2 as Ex M1W1/1, copy of contract as Ex. M1W1/2, copy of order through which the request made by workmen was declined as Ex. M1W1/3, copy of the offer of engagement of the workman as Aganwari worker dated 27.02.2020 as Ex.M1W1/4, copy of circulars of issued by Department/ respondent no.1 as Ex. M1W1/5 & 6.
27. Respondent no.2 examined MW2 Deepti Gupta, Manager Legal of respondent no.2, she tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.M2W1/A. She proved her authority letter as Ex M2W1/1 and letter of engagement of workman as Aganwari Supervisor as Ex. M2W1/2.
28.Final arguments have been heard at length as advanced by both the parties. Tribunal has gone through the documents, pleadings as well as written arguments submitted on behalf of parties.
Analysis and Discussion Issue No.1: Whether the claimant is not a workman as defined in Section 2(s) ID Act, 1940? (OPM 1)
29. To determine whether an Aganwari supervisor is considered a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, we must analyze the relevant legal definitions and judgments that clarify the status of such employees. Under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, definition of 'workman' is as follows:Digitally signed by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:57:35 +0530
Award 13 of 31
ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare
"Workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Army Act, 1950, or the Navy Act, 1957; or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."
30.It is evident that Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a "workman" defines as any person employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work for hire or reward. However, the definition also excludes certain categories of individuals, including those employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity. Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:57:41
+0530
Award 14 of 31
ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
31.Whether an Aganwari supervisor is considered a workman depends on the specific duties and the nature of their employment under the ICDS scheme and if their functions align with those described in the Industrial Disputes Act, they can be classified as workmen.
32. It is argued on behalf of workman that in Arkal Govind Raj Rao Vs Ciba Gdigy of India Ltd, 1985 AIR 985, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "The words like managerial or supervisory have to be understood in their proper connotation and their mere use should not detract from the truth." The Court further held in the same case that whether an employee is a workman or not has to be tested according to "what was the primary, basic or dominant nature of duties for which the person whose status is under enquiry was employed."
33.During course of his cross-examination, MW1 Nafees Ahmed, Deputy Director of respondent no.1 deposed that Aganwari Supervisor did not have any powers to charge- sheet, suspend or dismiss any Aganwari worker. From the deposition of MW1 it becomes evident that nature of the job of Aganwari Supervisor shows that the job profile does not have any power to issue charge-sheet, hold any departmental enquiry or terminate services of any other employee in the Department and this indicates that even though the Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:57:47
+0530
Award 15 of 31
ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare
nomenclature is of Aganwari Supervisor, but Aganwari Supervisor is in fact doing regular workman functions.
34.Onus to prove that claimant is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act is on the respondent no.1, however, nothing is proved on record by the respondent no.1/ management to indicate that an Aganwari Supervisor is doing any work in a managerial or administrative capacity. As such, claimant comes within the ambit of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Accordingly, issue no. 1 stands answered in favor of the workman and against the management.
Issue No.2: Whether dispute is not an Industrial Dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k) ID Act, 1940? OPM
35.Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines an "industrial dispute" as any dispute or difference between employers and employers, employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, connected with the employment or non-employment, the terms of employment, or the conditions of labor, of any person. Essentially, it covers disputes related to jobs, pay, and working conditions.
36.It is argued on behalf of respondent no.1 that claimant was working with the Department on honorary post of Aganwari Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06 Award 16 of 31 22:57:56 +0530 ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
Worker on fixed honorarium and as such she was neither receiving salary nor wages. It is stated that workman left the honorary job on her own sweet will to join non-permanent and temporary job of Supervisor on outsource contractual basis through manpower deployment agency ICSIL/ respondent no.2.
37. It is submitted that there is no employer/ employee relationship between workman and respondent no.1, therefore, present dispute is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Industrial Dispute Act. It is argued that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Uma Rani vs Registrar Co-Operative Society as reported in (2004) 6 SCC 112 as well as case titled as Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Rani, the present claim is not maintainable.
38. As far as question that honorarium given to workman is concerned, in "Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya Vs District Development Officer, Dahod & Others (2022) 16 SCC 242" , Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 91 observed as under:
91. Learned counsel for the State has given much stress on the honorarium paid to the Aganwari workers/helpers. Suffice it to say that the honorarium is basically the quantum of money offered/conferred to somebody who is especially a professional or a well honoured person for providing services. It is a voluntary Digitally signed by GAUTAM process. However, what is being paid to GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06 22:58:01 +0530 Award 17 of 31 ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare Aganwari workers/helpers with a nomenclature used by the respondents in projecting the term 'honorarium', is in fact the 'wages' that has been paid for the services rendered at the end of the month. It is the form of emoluments which is being earned on discharge of duty in accordance with the terms of employment defined under Section 2(s) of the Act 1972.
39. In view of above authoritative judgment, contention of respondent no.1 that since the workman was employed in a voluntary service by paying on honorarium as such, workman cannot be considered to be working on wages, stands rejected.
40. It is further argued by the respondent no.1 that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of " Uma Rani vs Registrar Co-Operative Society as reported in (2004) 6 SCC 112 as well as case titled as Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Rani, the present claim is not maintainable.
41. Recently in "Govt. NCT of Delhi through Directorate of Family Welfare Versus Nisha & Others, LPA 530/2024" 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5149 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
24. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has relied upon on a decision of this Court in the case of Project Dir. Dep.of Rural Development v. Its Workman, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7796 against which SLP (C) Dy.
No. 34164/2019 was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 14.10.2019, thereby this Court's decision attained finality. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06 22:58:06 +0530 Award 18 of 31 ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
25. This Court in Project Director (supra), in the facts and situation before it where the Rajya Sanik Board had recommended names of registered ex-servicemen to be appointed as caretakers of community centres, and pursuant to their initial appointment on contractual basis in 1997, had been in uninterrupted service for almost 22 years, then concluded as under:
Thus, in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Ajaypal Singh (supra), ONGC (supra) and Umrala Gram Panchayat (supra) as also of this Court in Ram Singh (supra), I find that the petitioner's reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra) and of this Court in Anil Lamba (supra) is wholly misconceived. In my opinion, once the Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner was indulging in unfair labour practice, it was well within its domain to pass an order directing the petitioner to regularize the respondents"
services. The petitioner has failed to make out any ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Industrial Tribunal in directing the petitioners to regularize the services of the respondents/workmen. There is no gainsaying that the writ jurisdiction and powers of superintendence of this Court have to be exercised only sparingly to ensure that the subordinate courts do not exceed their own jurisdiction and exercise it as and when required, or when there has been a manifest failure of justice, or when the principles of natural justice have been flouted. In my opinion, no such eventuality has occurred in the present case so as to warrant the exercise of powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution."
26. In view of above, the learned Single Judge Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN GAUTAM has opined that the relief seeking under the writ MANAN Date:
2025.08.06 22:58:12 +0530 Award 19 of 31 ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare jurisdiction the appellant introduced new aspects of evidence, which they chose not to lead before the learned Industrial Tribunal. Notwithstanding, the only argument is relating to the "temporary nature of appointment" in a project/mission under the RHC of these ANMs. It is not disputed, however, they had been consistently engaged since 2000- 2001 and have spent around 23 to 24 odd years in the same service of providing midwife care in various hospitals.
27. Though the contractual services cannot be regularized but in the project the respondents are continuously working for more than 23-24 years, they cannot be kept engaged on contractual basis throughout in service life. This type of practice amounts to exploiting the poor and needy person which cannot be accepted.
42. Vide orders dated 10.02.2025, passed in SLP No. 57566/2024, in case titled as "Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Nisha & Ors." Hon'ble Apex Court declined to interfere with the above order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
43. Moreover, Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 720/2024 titled as "Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Pradeep Rana & Ors", rejected the contention of the management that regularizing workman would lead to seniority disputes, financial burden, and was against the principles laid down in the Umadevi (supra). The Hon'ble Division Bench has categorically held that the Umadevi Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06 22:58:17 +0530 Award 20 of 31 ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
Doctrine would operate only in writ forums and not in industrial adjudications.
44. In view of above authoritative judgments, it stands already settled that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) pertains to service law matters and not to issues before Industrial Tribunals which are empowered to look into unfair labor practices under the scope and purview of the Industrial Disputes Act and other attendant legislation. Hence, the present dispute which deals with dispute related to jobs, pay, and working conditions of workman, is maintainable before Industrial Tribunal.
Issue No.3: Whether the claimant has no locus-standi to file the claim petition against management no.2. (OPM 2).
45.It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no.2 that the workman has got no locus-standi to file the present claim since the workman was appointed on purely contractual basis for fixed period w.e.f the date of joining till the end of the contract/work order awarded to respondent no. 2 by the Department.
46. In Adarsh Gujrat Aganwari Union Vs State of Gujrat & Others, vide order dated 02.08.2024 in R/Special Civil Application No. 8164 of 2015, Hon'ble Gujrat High Court, held as under: Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06 22:58:22 +0530 Award 21 of 31 ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare
28. A conjoint reading of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya (supra) and Dipika Jagatram Sahani (supra) would lead to a clear declaration emerging from the said decisions that the Central and the State Governments are under a statutory obligation to provide for nutritional support to pregnant women, lactating mothers and to children upto the age of 14 years, more particularly for the purpose of the present case between age group of 6 months to 6 years. The said obligation flowing from Sections 4 to 6 of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The State is statutorily obliged to provide for free education to children between 3 years to 6 years as per Section 11 of the RTE Act.
The National Food Security Act, 2013 statutorily recognizes Aganwari centres. The State is fulfilling its statutory obligations under both the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the RTE Act, through the Aganwari centres which are manned by AWWs and AWHs. Thus, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya (supra), AWWs and AWHs are employed on statutory posts.
47.As held in above stated judgment that Aganwari Workers and Supervisors are employed on statutory posts, therefore, claim of the workman to enforce her rights as against the Department and management no.2 who claims to be the company through which the workman was appointed cannot be discarded. Accordingly, the issue stands answered against management no.2 and in favor of the workman.
Digitally
signed by
GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.08.06
22:58:27
+0530
Award 22 of 31
ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
Issue No.4: As per terms of reference?
48. Now, the question to be analyzed and answered is whether the services of workman were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management in violation of section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
49.The undisputed facts are that the workman worked with management as Aganwari worker from 11.09.2007. Subsequently, without any break in service, she joined as Aganwari Supervisor with respondent no.1 on 20.07.2016. Thereafter, her services as Aganwari Supervisor was discontinued from 01.10.2017. However, following an order from Hon'ble High Court, workman was again employed on the post of Aganwari worker vide order of engagement dated 27.02.2020 as Ex. M1W1/4.
50.MW1 Nafees Ahmed, Deputy Director of respondent no.1 in his affidavit in para 6 has stated as under:
6. "That in absence of regular incumbents, the Department of Women & Child Development, GNCTD in the year 2016 had proposed to engage Aganwari Supervisors on contract basis for a specific period to be outsourced from Intelligent Communication Systems India Limited (ICSIL) which is a Public Sector undertaking and a joint venture of Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. (TCIL), A Govt.
of India Enterprises under Ministry of Communications and Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIIDC), an undertaking of Govt. of NCT Digitally signed of Delhi is an empanelled government agency to outsource GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN contractual manpower to various departments and MANAN Date:
2025.08.06 22:58:32 +0530 Award 23 of 31 ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare establishments of Government of NCT of Delhi. It is submitted that the Claimant on her choice, withdrew from the post of Aganwari Worker upon being short-listed for the post of contractual Supervisor by M/s Intelligent Communication Systems India Ltd (ICSIL) and was placed with the Department of Women & Child Development, Government of NCT of Delhi to work on purely contractual and outsourced basis under ICDS. She was paid monthly remuneration and the last drawn remuneration was Rs. 17,862/-. The services of the claimant as Aganwari Supervisor were discontinued w.e.f. 01.10.2017 following completion of selection process of Aganwari Supervisors on regular basis by Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and upon receiving of the dossiers of selected candidates and subsequently joining of new incumbents in the Department. This was done as per the settled legal position by the apex court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (Supreme Court
-2006). Copy of the letter for discontinuation of services of outsourced Supervisors issued by ICSIL on 25.09.2017 is being exhibited as Exhibit MW1/1."
51.Though MW1 in his examination-in-chief stated that after the recruitment of Aganwari Supervisors through DSSSB, the services of workman was terminated, however, the witness failed to answer as to how many Aganwari supervisors were terminated by the Department and how many were taken on regular job through that process.
52.MW1 admitted that some Aganwari Supervisors are working with the Department who were directly taken on contract by it and not through respondent no.2. Through response dated 03.08.2023 given by respondent no.1 to an RTI application, it has come on record that as on 01.08.2023, there are 231 Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06 22:58:36 +0530 Award 24 of 31 ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
vacant post of Supervisor Grade-II with respondent no. 1. No explanation has been given by respondent no. 1 that why these posts are still kept vacant despite the availability of the workman and similarly placed manpower who have already worked with respondent no. 1 as supervisors.
53.It is evident that the workman is working with the management continuously for almost 10 years. It is not disputed that workman was also appointed as Aganwari Supervisor after clearing a written examination and an interview held by Officials of respondent no. 1 and management has already engaged workman at the post of Aganwari Supervisor.
54. There is no dispute about the fact that the workman has been discharging the duties of Aganwari Supervisor. The management has more than 231 vacant sanctioned posts of Aganwari Supervisor in its establishment. Even though the workman was 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.
55.It has come on record that workman was appointed against the vacant post of Aganwari Supervisor. It is also not the Digitally signed GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.08.06 22:58:42 +0530 Award 25 of 31 ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare contention of management that the workman did not fulfill the requisite qualifications for the post at the time of her initial appointment. It is difficult of comprehend as to why despite having the requisite qualifications and vacancies available for the post of Aganwari Supervisor, the workman was disengaged.
56.In "Deen Bandu Garg & Others Vs South Delhi Muncipal Corporation & Others, WP (C) 11693/2019", decided on 16.04.2025, Hon'ble High Court regularized the service of the workmen by holding that:
(i) the applicants have rendered continuous and uninterrupted service for the MCD for decades except, in some cases, for temporary summer vacation breaks,
(ii) they are working as teachers, so that their work is perennial and their need continuous,
(iii) they were appointed against sanctioned posts,
(iv) they were appointed after a due process of selection, following an advertisement, which required the applicants to possess all essential qualifications for the post, and satisfy the age stipulations, and
(v) they are directly employed under the MCD and are under their supervision. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06 22:58:47 +0530 Award 26 of 31 ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
57. In the present case also the following facts emerge:
a) Workman has rendered continuous and uninterrupted service for almost 10 years.
b) Workman has performed the permanent and perennial nature of work as a Aganwari Supervisor.
c) At the time when workman was appointed, there were vacant posts of Aganwari Supervisor were available with the management and still there are about 231 vacant posts of Aganwari Supervisor.
d) There is nothing on record to indicate that the workman does not fulfill qualifications for the job.
e) During the course of the employment, the services of workman were found to be satisfactory and there was no complaint against her.
58. 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 Section 25U of Industrial Disputes Act.
59.Industrial Tribunals have a duty to examine the reasons/ justification recorded by the management for appointing Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06 22:58:55 +0530 Award 27 of 31 ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare workers on a temporary basis and assess these reasons in accordance with the Industrial Dispute Act. Engaging workers for permanent and perennial work and treating them as casual/muster roll/contract/daily wager/temporary workers without recorded reasons will act against the management and suggest an element of unfair labor practice, as it exploits the services of workers without providing them their due wages, and no justifiable reasons have been recorded by management.
60. It is submitted on behalf of the management that workman herself agreed to work on the post of Aganwari Worker and now she cannot agitate her claim again. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli and Ors vs State of UP., (1986)1 SCC 637 held that employees, especially those in low-
wages categories, often have no choice but to accept employment under exploitative terms offered by the employer due to the prevailing conditions of unemployment and their socio-economic background. The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge of the terms does not absolve the government or the employer from the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, which implies equal pay for work of equal value. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06 22:59:02 +0530 Award 28 of 31 ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
61. Similarly, in the Officer Incharge Defence Standardization Cell vs Mukesh Kumar, 2013(4)SC T108 (Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court emphasized that the employer cannot use contract stipulations as a tool of exploitation. Their unilateral imposition of oppressive and unreasonable conditions of service, which the workman has little choice but to accept, cannot be justified.
62.In view of the admitted position and the material on record, this Tribunal holds that the management has clearly committed an unfair labour practice as enumerated in Item No. 10 of the Fifth Schedule read with Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act by employing the workman against the sanctioned vacant post of Aganwari Supervisor but treating her merely as a contractual employee for performing the permanent nature of work of a Aganwari Supervisor.
63.In industrial adjudications, where the employer has kept the permanent posts unfilled and indulged in the unfair labour practice of keeping workmen on a temporary basis over prolonged periods of time, the statutory power of the industrial adjudicator to grant relief to the workmen, including the status of permanency, continues, in such a case, Industrial Tribunal has the power to pass an order for regularization of the workman.
Digitally signed GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.08.06 22:59:14 +0530 Award 29 of 31 ID No: 146/2018 Meenakshi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare
64.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.
65.Workman has given sustained contribution to the management, first as a Aganwari Worker, then as a Aganwari Supervisor and again as Aganwari Worker. There is no adverse remark against her, as such, she warrants equitable treatment and regularization of her services. Denial of this benefit, followed by her arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and as held in above authoritative judgment makes workman entitled to continue to be in service of management no.1 on the post of Aganwari Supervisor.Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN
GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.08.06
22:59:21
+0530
Award 30 of 31
ID No: 171/2018 "Suman Devi Vs Department of Women & Child Welfare & Anr"
Relief
66. In view of the above findings, the order of dis-engagement of workman Suman Devi W/o Sh. Surinder Kumar, dated 25.09.2017 stands set-aside. It is directed that management no.1 shall take the workman back on duty at the post of Aganwari Supervisor and her services shall be regularized from 20.07.2016 that is the date she was appointed as Aganwari Supervisor.
Workman shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period she has worked as Aganwari Supervisor, but she would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for her post-retiral benefits.
Management No.1 shall implement the award within 60 days of its publication. The reference is answered accordingly. Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 5th August 2025. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.08.06 22:59:27 +0530 GAUTAM MANAN PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI Award 31 of 31