M.C.D. vs Workman (Mates) And Anr.
2003 Latest Caselaw 617 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This writ petition challenges the award dated 9th October, 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Delhi. By the impugned order the Tribunal has granted parity to the Mates working in M.C.D. with the Mates working in C.P.W.D. The terms of reference were as follows:

"Whether the mates in the Engineering Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 1.1.73 and revised to the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 w.e.f. 1.1.86 at par with their counter parts working in CPWD and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?"

2. In granting the parity the Tribunal has recorded the following evidence of the Commissioner, M.C.D.:

"It is correct that even in MCD job of mate is to as per documents R & MW1/9. Supervise the work of an unskilled worker. It is correct that various duties mentioned in Ex. WW1/19 by the mates in MCD are performed by mates in CPWD. Again scale is more or less the same duties. I cannot say that the pay scale of Rs. 210-290 had been changed to 260-400 by MCD for mates or that by recommendation of 5th Pay Commission the present scale is revised. It is correct that mates in engineering Deptt. of MCD had been demanding since long to pay them scale of equivalent to what is paid to mates in CPWD. So far as MCD is concerned, MCD is sympathetic towards the demands of mates of Engg. Deptt but MCD has its own financial constraints. I have not come across any documents reflecting financial implication to be borne by MCD in case mates are given the pay scale equal to pay scale given to CPWD mates. It is correct that responsibility/obligations of mates of CPWD and that of the mates in MCD are the same. By obligation I mean disciplinary action."

2. Accordingly the Tribunal arrived at the following findings:

"32. So, the workmen have been bale to demonstrate regarding the duties of the Mates done and assigned to them by the Engineering Deptt. of MCD. However, the workmen have not placed on record, the corresponding duties performed by the Mates of CPWD but MW1 who is Asstt. Commissioner, MCD, Delhi, in his cross-examination though has stated that it is incorrect that duties, performed by Mates in CPWD are identifical in nature to the duties, performed by the Mates in MCD and he cannot say whether workmen working in CPWD, working as Mates are doing any other job as to what is written in Ex. WW1/19 but after his cross-examination was deferred on the request of the witness himself that he wants time to pursue and place on record any document regarding the nature of work undertaken by the Mates of CPWD, he has admitted that the job of a Mate is to supervise the work of an unskilled workman and that the duties, mentioned in Ex. WW1/19 performed by the Mates in MCD are performed by Mates in CPWD. Though he has improved upon the statement yet he has stated that it is more or less the same duties. He has also admitted that Mates in Engineering Deptt. MCD had been demanding since long to pay them the scale of pay equivalent to the scales of Mates in CPWD."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not produce the terms and conditions of the CPWD mates. However, a senior officer like the Commissioner of the MCD himself admitted that the duties and responsibilities of the mates in MCD and in CPWD are similar. The finding of the Tribunal giving parity is unassailable. The Tribunal has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Randhir Singh vs. Union of India reported as AIR 1992 SC 879, and applying the law laid down therein held that where all the relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. Since the mates in MCD are appointed in 3 years and the mates in CPWD are appointed after 10 years, the Tribunal has taken care to ensure that the parity is granted after taking into account this difference of 7 years. The Tribunal's award does not permit the MCD mates to steal a march over the CPWD. Para 40 of the award which makes it clear reads as under:

"40. Accordingly, it is held that initially, the pay scale of the Mates to remain at Rs. 210-290 but after they have completed seven years in service, their scale should be 260-400. So far as the present Mates are concerned, they are entitled to the pay scales of Rs. 260-400/- revised to Rs. 950-1500 from the date of the reference i.e. 17.6.97 and the arrears be paid to them, accordingly. All mates who have completed service of seven years as Mate in the pay scale of Rs. 210-290 as on 17.6.97 will also be entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 and not from any date prior to that date. Arrears be paid within three months of the publication of this award otherwise the management will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum. Award is passed, accordingly."

4. There is thus no merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is causing inequality in the MCD itself. The order ensures that unless and until seven years are completed in service by the mates in MCD, they should not be given parity with the mates in CPWD. Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly.