Delhi High Court
Sachin vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 20 July, 2017
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 473/2017 & CMs 24576-77/2017
Date of decision: 20th July, 2017
SACHIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Neelam Tiwari, Adv.
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
.....Respondent
Through: Counsel (appearance not given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Oral)
1. The appeal impugns order dated 5th May, 2017 disposing
of writ petition filed by the present appellant-Sachin.
2. The appellant and some others have filed Statement of
Claim before the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication in the
reference made by Deputy Labour Commissioner vide order
bearing no.F.24(22)/CD/15/Lab./119 dated 26th February, 2015
on the following terms:-
"Whether the demand of the workmen Sh. Sachin &
18 ors. (As per Annexure-A) for regularization their
services on the post of AMI & APHI with retrospective
effect from the initial date of their joining into the
employment and to pay them entire difference to salary
LPA 473/2017 Page 1
on the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' for the
initial joining onwards, is legal and justified; and if so, to
what relief are they entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
3. During pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, the
appellant and some others had filed an application seeking
interim award/order restraining the respondent i.e. North Delhi
Municipal Corporation from going ahead with the process of
recruitment to the post of Assistant Malaria Inspector and
Assistant Public Health Inspector vide advertisement no.01/14
(Post Code-21/14 and 22/14). In alternative, it was prayed that
sufficient seats /posts be kept vacant /reserved and should not
be filled up so that the applicants, in case they succeed, can be
appointed.
4. The application was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal
vide order dated 27th February, 2017 for various reasons. This
order notes that any decision in favour of the present appellant
would amount to pre-judging the case without final adjudication
and determination on merits. The Tribunal has made reference
to Sections 33 and 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ultimately, the application was dismissed holding that no
interim order should be passed. The appellant, we may notice,
was appointed on contractual basis as Assistant Malaria
Inspector on 21st September, 2010. As noticed above, the
statement of claim was filed in 2015, in terms of the reference
order.
LPA 473/2017 Page 2
5. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge
refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hongkong and
Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited vs. Government of
India & Anr. (2009) 13 SCC 771 and the same was
distinguished. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was
right in distinguishing the said decision which was relating to
an interim award for payment of Rs.30,000/- per month by the
Industrial Tribunal. The peculiar facts of the said case have
been highlighted in the order under challenge.
6. In the present case, the appellant is still working as a
contractual employee with the respondent Corporation. His
services have not been terminated. The balance of convenience
does not justify passing of an interim order restraining the
recruitment process, which would have far reaching effect and
consequences. Further, the appellant is yet to firmly establish
his right for regularization, which is the subject matter of
dispute pending before the Tribunal. In case the appellant
succeeds, suitable and appropriate orders can be passed,
notwithstanding the adverse orders under challenge in the
appeal and the present order.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention
to the observations of the learned Single Judge that in case the
appellant succeeds before the Tribunal, he can be adequately
compensated on his absorption to the post which falls vacant in
future etc. It is submitted that the aforesaid observations, may
LPA 473/2017 Page 3
cause prejudice to the appellant when the matter is heard and
decided by the Industrial Tribunal, as these could be construed
as directions of the High Court. We would only observe that
the aforesaid observations would not be treated as binding and
affirmative finding given by the learned single Judge, in case
the appellant succeeds. We have already quoted the order of
reference. In case the appellant and others succeed, they would
be entitled to relief in accordance with law. These are the
aspects for the Industrial Tribunal to examine and decide.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he want
expeditious disposal of the industrial dispute. He can make the
said prayer to the Tribunal.
9. With the aforesaid observations, we dismiss the present
appeal. There would be no order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
JULY 20, 2017
RN
LPA 473/2017 Page 4
