Delhi High Court
South Delhi Municipal ... vs Om Prakash & Ors on 2 August, 2019
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 02nd August, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 9572/2018
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Eshita Baruah, Advocate for
Mr.Guarang Kanth, Advocate.
versus
OM PRAKASH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sugandh Kochhar, Advocate for
Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 31st July, 2006 and the
recovery certificate dated 14th August, 2018 for implementation of the same
whereby the Industrial Tribunal directed the washing allowance to be
disbursed to the workmen at the rate of Rs.60/- per month with effect from
20th July 1993.
2. The C and D category employees of the petitioner raised an Industrial
dispute claiming enhancement of their washing allowance from Rs.15/- per
month to Rs.60/- per month on the ground that the C and D category
employees of hospitals/medical institutions were being paid washing
allowance of Rs.60/- per month w.e.f. 20th July, 1993.
3. The petitioner defended the claim on the ground that the working
conditions of C and D category employees in the hospitals cannot be equated
with the employees in the other departments. The petitioner follows Central
Government orders with respect to the allowances payable to its employees.
On 22nd June, 2000, the petitioner enhanced the washing allowance on C &
D category employees working in the hospitals from Rs.15/- per month to
Rs.60/- per month w.e.f. 20th July, 1993. With respect to the employees other
than the hospital employees, washing allowance of Rs.15/- per month was
increased to Rs.30/- per month w.e.f. 01st August, 1997 vide circular dated
14th September, 2001.
4. The Industrial Tribunal held that there was no justification for
discrimination between C and D category employees working in hospitals
and other C and D category employees and the Industrial Tribunal directed
the petitioner to pay washing allowance to all C and D category employees
at the rate of Rs.60/- per month with effect from 20th July, 1993.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged at the time of hearing that
that the work of the employees working in hospitals cannot be equated with
other employees as the nature of work and duties of the hospital employees
is different from other employees. It is further submitted that the principle of
equal pay for equal work would not apply in the present case as the nature of
work and duties of the two categories of employees are different.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents urged at the time of the hearing
that C and D category employees whether working in hospitals/medical
institutions or any other department, are doing the same work and are
discharging the same duties. There is no difference in their qualification
and/or in the nature of work. It is further submitted that disparity in payment
of washing allowance is in complete violation of the principle of equal pay
for equal work. It is further submitted that the pay scale prescribed by the
Central/State Government is not binding on MCD. It is further submitted
that the MCD admitted before the Industrial Tribunal that the washing
allowance of all C and D employees has been increased to Rs.60/- per month
with effect from 20th July, 1993.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged at the time of the hearing that
the petitioner never admitted before the Industrial Tribunal that the washing
allowance of all C and D category employees has been enhanced to Rs.60/-
per month with effect from 20th July, 1993 and the Industrial Tribunal erred
in recording the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner has placed on
record the copy of O.M. No.257/AO(H)/EC(F)/2000 dated 22 nd June, 2000;
O.M. No.14/9/95-JCA dated 12th December, 2000; Circular No.
F4(34)/CA/F&G/2001 1186 dated 14th September, 2001; Standing
Committee resolution No.393 dated 22nd August, 2001 and Decision
No.5349/GW/Corp dated 17th June 1996.
8. This Court is of the view that the nature of work of the C and D
employees posted in the hospitals is different from the other employees. The
work of the hospital employees is extremely arduous in nature. The nature of
work of hospital staff are exposed to patients affected with communicable
diseases, handling of infected materials, instruments and equipments which
could spread infections from human tissues or organs, through blood and
other body fluids, pathological fluids and discharges, biochemical and
microbiological samples. The nature of work also involves routine handling,
exposure and contact with other hazardous samples like toxic, corrosive,
inflammable, reactive or injurious substances, chemicals and radiations.
Routine contact with patients due to the nature of work of the above said
categories may lead to accidental or inadvertent transmission of
communicable disease to these employees. Such constant and continuous
exposure while discharging their official duties renders them vulnerable and
susceptible for acquiring debilitating and life threatening communicable
diseases. Further these employees are at a high risk of contacting hospital
related infections from the patients or through other biohazards.
9. This Court is satisfied that payment of higher washing allowance to
the hospital staff is founded on intelligible differentia which has a rational
nexus to their nature of work and there is no infirmity in the payment of
higher washing allowance to the C and D category employees in the
hospitals. With respect to the admission of the petitioner noted by the
Industrial Tribunal, it is noted that the petitioner nowhere admitted the
respondent's claim either in their written statement or in their evidence. The
petitioner placed on record all the relevant circulars in support of their
defence. The admission of the petitioner appears to have been wrongly
recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. The admission of the petitioner recorded
by the Industrial Tribunal is therefore, set aside.
10. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned award as well as the
recovery certificate is hereby set aside.
11. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties
under signature of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
AUGUST 02, 2019
dk
