Dda Karamchari Morcha (Regd.) & ... vs D.D.A. & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 776 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of decision: 9th February, 2011

+                                  W.P.(C) 1847/1996

DDA KARAMCHARI MORCHA (REGD.) & ANR.      ..... Petitioners
               Through: Mr. K.C. Dubey, Advocate.

                                     Versus
D.D.A. & OTHERS                                         ..... Respondents
                                Through:    Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, Advocate
                                            for DDA.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                    No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner is a union of non-technical Supervisors (NTS)/Mates

working with the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA). It is

the case of the petitioner that while all other cadres of the respondent DDA

are being paid scales at par with those in CPWD, the NTS/Mates are being

paid scales lower than that of their counterparts in CPWD, even though the

duties of NTS/Mates in the respondent DDA are more varied than that in

CPWD. Reliance in this regard is placed on the minutes of the meeting

dated 5th April, 1990 of the senior officers of the respondent DDA (the

counsel for the respondent DDA clarifies that the suggestions in the said

minutes were not accepted by the Competent Authority of the respondent

DDA).

2. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) No.564/1991 in this Court for a

direction to the respondent DDA to extend to the members of the

petitioners the same pay scale as applicable to NTS/Mates in CPWD. The

said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18 th February, 1991

holding that it is not possible to grant the relief for the reason that there

was nothing to show the exact nature of duties being performed by the

petitioners and those performed by the employees of CPWD and the best

course for the petitioners was to seek for a reference to the Industrial Court

which can go into the facts and determine the dispute.

3. In pursuance thereto a reference dated 17 th September, 1992 was

made to the Industrial Tribunal as under:-

"Whether the mates/non-technical supervisor are entitled to the pay scale of `260-400 (Pre-revised) `950-1500 (Revised) and if so what directions are necessary in this respect?"

4. The Industrial Tribunal has vide award dated 25th November, 1995

decided the reference against the petitioners. This writ petition has been

filed impugning the said award.

5. A perusal of the award dated 25th November, 1995 shows that the

petitioners instead of proceeding to lead evidence, as observed in the order

dated 18th February, 1991 (supra), of the nature of duties performed by its

members being the same as that performed by the counterparts/equivalent

in CPWD, rested its case only on Resolution No.211 dated 26 th April, 1965

of the respondent DDA (in the award the date of the Resolution at some

place is given as 26th September, 1965, at other places as 25th April, 1965

but the counsels confirm that the Resolution is dated 26 th April, 1965

annexure P-2 to the petition as appearing at page 27 of the paper book).

The Industrial Tribunal on a reading of the said Resolution did not find the

same to be laying down that the pay scales in the DDA are to be the same

as in CPWD.

6. Resolution dated 26th April, 1965 records that the DDA through

regulations framed under the Delhi Development Act had extended to its

staff rules such as the Fundamental Rules, Supplementary Rules, the

Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules etc; that certain other rules which

are in force in Government departments are also being followed in day to

day working though no formal decision on that respect had been taken;

vide the said Resolution the General Financial Rules, Central Treasury

Rules, Accounts Codes, CPWD Codes and CPWD Account Code were

also made applicable mutatis mutandis to the working of the DDA.

7. Being of the view that the Resolution aforesaid rather showed that

whatever was applicable in CPWD was not ipso facto applicable to the

respondent DDA without a Resolution, it has been enquired from the

counsel for the petitioners as to how under the said Resolution it can be

said that the pay scales of CPWD would also apply to the respondent

DDA. The counsel for the respondent DDA has also contended that

application of the rules would not imply application of the decisions taken

under the rules.

8. The question which was for consideration before the Labour Court

was whether the pay scales applicable to CPWD are applicable to DDA.

The said Resolution is not found to be of assistance to the petitioners at all.

9. The counsel for the petitioners himself has contended that the case

of the petitioner is of its members being discriminated against; of while

performing the same if not more onerous duties than those performed by

their counterparts in CPWD similarly placed, being paid lower wages and

particularly when all other cadres in the respondent DDA are at par with

the pay scales in CPWD. Unfortunately, no finding in this regard has been

returned in the award impugned in this petition, because the petitioner

though had started on the right path seem to have in between lost its way.

10. Else, the award also has observed that the respondent DDA should

sympathetically consider the case of the petitioners.

11. In the circumstances aforesaid, it has been enquired from the

counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is agreeable to a

remand to the Industrial Tribunal so that the adjudication which was

intended to be done, is done. In fact at one stage, it was enquired as to

whether the petitioner has placed appointment letters of its members or any

other material on record to show that their pay scales were intended to be

at par. No such material has been placed though the counsel had sought

time to produce the same. It is deemed expedient that upon remand, liberty

is also given to the parties to file further documents. The counsel for the

petitioner has opted for remand rather than pressing the case on the basis of

the Resolution aforesaid alone.

12. The counsel for the respondent DDA has been heard. However since

the order in the earlier writ petition is found to have remained

unimplemented, it is deemed expedient to remand the matter rather than

deny a relief to the petitioners on a half baked matter.

13. The petition is therefore allowed to the extent of setting aside of the

award impugned in this petition and by remanding the matter to the

Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication after allowing the parties liberty

to file fresh pleadings, documents and after considering the evidence if any

which may be led by the parities. Needless to state that fresh issues if any

arising and in the light of this order shall also be framed. The record of the

Tribunal was not requisitioned in this Court and must be available with the

Tribunal only. The parties to appear before successor Industrial

Tribunal on 14th March, 2011; considering that the matter has already been

delayed, the Industrial Tribunal, subject to the parties co-operating and

which the counsels assure, to decide the remanded matter as expeditiously

as possible and preferably before end of the year.

The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 09, 2011 pp