Delhi High Court
Mcd General Mazdoor Union vs Mcd on 10 March, 2015
Author: V.P.Vaish
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 10th March, 2015
+ W.P.(C) No.4784 /2011
MCD GENERAL MAZDOOR UNION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Varun Prasad, Adv.
versus
MCD ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Mini Pushkarna, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has assailed order
dated 05.08.2008 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-
XVI, Karkardooma Courts in LCA No.139/06.
2. In a nutshell the facts giving rise to the present petition are that
the workmen filed LCA No.139/06 for computing the benefits of
liveries (uniform and stitching charges) under Section 33C (2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'ID Act').
Vide impugned order dated 05.08.2008 while deciding Issue No.1 i.e.
whether petition is maintainable or not, learned trial Court came to the
conclusion that there was no prior adjudication or settlement or service
condition on the basis of which workmen could be held entitled for
uniform/liveries, washing allowance and stitching charges. It was
further observed that it cannot be decided under Section 33C (2) of the
ID Act as to whether workmen are entitled or not for uniform/liveries,
washing allowance and stitching charges. The petition was dismissed
as not maintainable.
3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 05.08.2008, the petitioner has
filed the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workmen are
entitled to uniform/liveries, washing allowance and stitching charges in
view of circulars dated 09.09.1986 and 04.01.1996 issued by MCD,
Central, Uniform Cell, Delhi.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the aforesaid
two circulars dated 09.09.1986 and 04.01.1996 are the basis of claim
for uniform, cloth and stitching charges and, therefore, the petition
under Section 33C (2) of the ID Act could not have been dismissed at
the threshold on the ground of its maintainability.
6. This Court is of the opinion that since the applicant is able to
show that there were circulars which form the basis of claim for
Uniform, cloth and stitching charges, the petitioner under Section 33C
(2) of the ID Act could not have been dismissed at the threshold on the
ground of its maintainability.
7. A similar question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in a case titled as 'Workman of MCD
vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi' in LPA No.563/2009 decided on
13.11.2009. In the said case, filed by the petitioner therein the issue
under consideration was same as that before this Court. The
application under Section 33C (2) of the ID Act praying for the
benefits of liveries (uniform and stitching charges) were declined.
Thereafter, the petition bearing W.P.(C) No.2505/2007 of the workman
was also dismissed pursuant to which the said case was filed. The
Hon'ble Division Bench set aside the award and the matter was
remanded to the Labour Court to decide the reference on merits.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated
05.08.2008 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XVI,
Karkardooma Courts in LCA No.139/06 is set aside. The learned
Labour Court is directed to decide all the issues on merits after giving
both the parties an opportunity to lead evidence in accordance with
law.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
MARCH 10th, 2015
gm
