Municipal Employees Union vs The Presiding Officer, ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 2209 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                         W.P.(C.) No.2695/1996


                      Date of Decision: 26.04.2011
%

Municipal Employees Union                                   .... Petitioner
                        Through: None.

                                  Versus

The Presiding Officer, Industrial                     .... RESPONDENTS
Tribunal No.I, Delhi and another
                          Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA


1.    Whether reporters of Local papers be                     No
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?                  Yes

3.    Whether the judgment           should     be            Yes
      reported in the Digest?


M.L. MEHTA, J. (ORAL)

*

1. This is a writ petition filed by the Municipal Employees Union

against the award dated 22nd December, 1994 passed by the

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal - I (hereinafter referred to as

the "Tribunal") whereby workman, Raghubir Singh, was denied

the relief of regularization to the post of Workman from the date

of his appointment, i.e., 10th June, 1984 in the post of Beldar/Mali.

2. On behalf of workman, Raghubir Singh, statement of claim was

filed before the Tribunal claiming regularization of workman,

Raghubir Singh, in the post of Beldar/Mali from the date of his

initial appointment. Written statement therein was filed by

Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondent No.2 (hereinafter

referred to as "respondent"). The said petition came to be

dismissed vide impugned award dated 22nd December, 1994. It

is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

3. The impugned award has been assailed on various grounds, such

as respondent could not adopt a policy of pick and choose in

granting relief of regularization to daily-wagers from the date of

their appointments, and that the workman was entitled to be

treated as regularly appointed after he has completed three

months of continuous service and that the impugned award was

contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case

of Jeet Singh and others V. MCD and others, AIR 1987 SC

1781.

4. No one has appeared for the parties. As per the notification

made in the cause list, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

The petition was filed in the year 1996 against the impugned

award of December 1994. It is seen that the case was

repeatedly adjourned either on account of non appearance of the

petitioner or that of the respondent‟s counsel. This was despite

issue of various notices. The matter was also listed before the

Lok Adalat where also none appeared for the petitioner and on

some dates also none appeared for this respondent. Since from

the last few dates, the case is being listed in the regular matters,

but no one is appearing for the parties.

5. The statement of claim before the learned Tribunal was filed as

„workman care of Municipal Employees‟ Union‟. The learned

Tribunal had taken note of the fact and rightly so that all the

proceedings, such as issue of notice, conciliation proceedings,

statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer and also before

the Tribunal were taken by Rajiv Aggarwal, Secretary of

Municipal Employees Union on behalf of the workman, Raghubir

Singh. Not even a single document was placed on record to

show the interest of workman in the proceedings before the

Tribunal. From the impugned award, it appears that it was

Union through its Secretary, Rajiv Aggarwal, who had taken up

the cause of workman, Raghubir Singh, even without his desire

and it also appears that it may not be at his instance. It was

surprising to note such a state of affair that the „Industrial

Dispute‟ was taken up by the Union alone even without there

being anything on record to show any interest of the workman in

the whole proceeding, so much so, the affidavit of evidence was

also filed by the Secretary, Rajiv Aggarwal. There were certain

facts with regard to the date of joining of workman, Raghubir

Singh, as daily wager, as taken by respondent, which remained

uncontroverted by the workman. In the statement of claim, the

plea of Union was about workman, Raghubir Singh, having joined

as daily wager some time on 10th June, 1980, whereas as per

respondent/MCD his date of joining as per the muster roll was

since July 1987. Further plea of the respondent/MCD that a

seniority list was prepared for regularization of such daily wagers

and all those who had joined uptil 1979 had been included in the

said list and further that the name of workman, Raghubir Singh,

would be shown in the subsequent list that may be drawn later

as and when there are vacancies. All these facts have also

remained uncontroverted before the Tribunal.

6. The learned Presiding Officer while dismissing the contention of

Rajiv Aggarwal, Secretary of the Union, about the workman,

Raghubir Singh, having acquired the status of permanent

employee with effect from 10th June, 1980, held that if the

workman, Raghubir Singh, has not been regularized so far, he

was entitled to be paid salary or wages equivalent to the

minimum salary paid to a regular Mali/Beldar with effect from 1 st

January, 1995 with other allowances and benefits as mentioned

in Rattan Lal and others v. Lt. Governors and others,

(1992) 4 SCC 117 and Niadar and Another v. Delhi

Administration and Another, (1992) 4 SCC 112.

7. The learned Presiding Officer also observed that the workman,

Raghubir Singh, will be absorbed as per the policy of the MCD in

due course, if not already absorbed.

8. In the case of Jeet Singh and others (supra) relied upon by the

petitioner, it was held by the Supreme as under:

"We understand that the services of the petitioners have been regularized recently. Petitioners claim that they have been in continuous employment ever since the year 1979 and that they are entitled to the Salary and Allowances as are paid to regular and permanent employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Following the Order made in the Writ Petitions Nos.3077- 3111 of 1985 we direct that these petitioners shall be entitled to the Salary and Allowances on the same basis as paid to regular and permanent employees from the date of their continuous employment."

9. The learned Presiding Officer has taken note of the aforesaid

judgment of Jeet Singh (supra) and having relied upon the same

and other judgments of the Supreme Court passed the impugned

order as noted above.

10. In view of the above, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the

impugned award. Hence the petition has no merit and is

dismissed.

                                                       M.L.MEHTA
APRIL 26, 2011                                          (JUDGE)
„Dev‟