Delhi District Court
Kamini Arya vs Mcd on 15 April, 2026
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHARAD GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
POIT No. 542/2016
CNR No. DLCT13-001505-2013
1. Smt. Kamini Arya
W/o Sh. Ajay Kumar Jangid
2. Smt. Suman Lata
W/o Sh. Rakesh
As represented by
Hospital Employees Union,
Agarwal Bhawan, G. T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi - 110054. ..... Workman
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
through Its Commissioner North
Dr. S. P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre,
J. L. Nehru Marg,
Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002. .... Management
Date of Institution 16.02.2013
Order reserved on 07.04.2026
Date of Award 15.04.2026
AWARD
1. Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
Delhi has referred this dispute vide SHARAD GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.15
16:09:28
+0530
Award 1 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
F.24/(31)ND/71/2011/Lab./236 dated 11.02.2013 for
adjudication with following terms of the reference:
(1) "Whether demand of Smt. Kamini Arya W/o Sh. Ajay
Kumar Jangid and Smt. Suman Lata W/o Sh. Rakesh for
regularization on the post of ANMs in proper scale of
Rs.5,200/- - 20,200/- from initial date of joining into the
employment, is justified, and if so, what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
2. "Whether demand of Smt. Kamini Arya W/o Sh. Ajay
Kumar Jangid and Smt. Suman Lata W/o Sh. Rakesh for
parity with contractual ANMs of Govt. of NCT of Delhi
who are discharging the similar nature of duties and to pay
difference of salary on the principle of "Equal Pay for
Equal Work", is justified, and if so, what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
It is a matter of record that vide corrigendum dated
21.06.2013 the name of SDMC as mentioned in reference
dated 11.02.2013 was changed to NDMC.
Statement of Claim
2. The present statement of claim is being filed on behalf of the
workmen whose service particulars are as under:-
Sl. No. Name & Father's/Husband's Designation Date of Present
Name appointment place
posting
1. Kamini Arya W/o Sh. Ajay ANMs 01.08.2001 Mty.
Kr. Jangidd Home,
Yamuna
Vihar,
Delhi
2. Suman Lata W/o Sh. Rakesh ANMs 25.09.2005 M&CW
Center,
Pahari
Dhiraj, Digitally signed
by SHARAD
Delhi SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:09:38 +0530
Award 2 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
3. It is stated in the claim that workmen joined into the
employment of the management w.e.f. the dates as mentioned
above. They were taken in job on contract basis as mentioned
in their respective appointment letters issued by the
management and were paid fixed wages revised from time to
time as per the sweet will of the management, while their
counter-parts doing the identical work of same value were
being treated as regular employees and were being paid salary
in proper pay scale and allowances, but it was denied to the
workmen.
4. It is stated that many posts of ANMs carrying the regular pay
scale are lying vacant. Initially they were paid Rs. 5000/- per
month and from September, 2007 were paid Rs. 7600/- per
month and the regular counter-parts of the workmen are being
paid their salary in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200/- and in
order to circumvent the law, workmen have been given one
day break from July, 2003 onwards.
5. It is stated that the workmen fulfills the Recruitment
Regulations (RRs) for the appointment on the post of ANMs.
It is stated that while appointing them as ANMs the posts
were advertised in the newspaper and in response to the same
workmen also applied for the same and after successfully
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:09:46 +0530
Award 3 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
completing the interview and medical test, they have been
given offer of appointment and were duly appointed.
6. It is stated that in May, 2007 without any reason, the
workmen/ANMs were called and forced to appear before the
alleged selection board and declared them failed for ulterior
reasons. However, thereafter, they were continuously
working and there is no complaint about their work. The
workmen have been working against the vacant post of
ANMs since their induction into the employment of the
management, and they had undergone the rigorous
employment procedure at the time of their initial appointment
with the management.
7. It is submitted that the workmen are continuously discharging
their services with the management aforesaid since the date
mentioned above. They have an unblemished and
uninterrupted record of service to their credit. Although the
workmen are supposed to be regularized since their respective
initial date of joining, but the management has not taken any
steps to regularize their service.
8. It is submitted that the similarly situated workmen employed
with Govt. of NCT of Delhi and discharging the similar
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
GUPTA
SHARAD Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.15
16:09:53
+0530
Award 4 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
nature of duties and designated as contractual ANMs are
getting Rs. 15,000/- per month.
9. It is stated that the non-regularization of services of the
workmen since their initial date of joining on the post of
ANMs in proper pay-scale and allowances and non-payment
of difference of salary on the principle of equal pay for equal
work with all arrears thereof is totally illegal, bad, unjust and
malafide and amounting to unfair labour practice.
10.It is submitted that the job against which the workmen have
been working is of a permanent and regular nature of job.
11.That employing persons on regular nature of jobs and treating
them as a monthly paid/muster roll workers and paying them
lesser remuneration than those doing the identical work and
the work of same value amounts to unfair labour practice as
provided in Section 2(ra) read with Item no. 10 of Fifth
Schedule and read with Section 25 T punishable under
Section 25 U of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the same
was clearly held by the Supreme Court of India in the Matter
of "Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. the Secretary, Municipal
Employees Union and Ors" (2005)IILLJ 403SC vide judgment
dated 27.03.2015, ONGC Itd Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union
and Ors. (2015) IILJ 257SC, vide judgment dated 17.04.2015.
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:10:02 +0530
Award 5 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
12.It is stated that unfair treatment of the workman is violative of
Articles 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. That it
amounts to sheer exploitation of labour.
13.It is submitted that the management has not framed under any
rules or regulations nor get it passed by the U.P.S.C. and nor
notified in the official Gazette for governing the service
conditions of the so-called muster roll/part-time seasonal
workers/ contract workers, nor it has any certified Standing
Orders governing service conditions of such workers and,
therefore, Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are applicable to
the workmen and the management and its Undertakings.
14.Workmen submitted that they have acquired the status of a
permanent employee from initial date of their respective
joining into the employment after completing 90 days of
continuous employment as provided in the Model Standing
Orders framed under Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act,1946.
15.Workmen submitted that action of the management in
employing the aforesaid workmen as contractual or
temporary and to continue them as such for years together
with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:10:09 +0530
Award 6 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
of permanent workmen amounts to unfair labour practice as
provided in Section 2 (ra) read with Item No.10 of the 5th
Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
16.That the work and conduct of the workmen aforesaid has
been satisfactory and there has been no complaint against
their work. It is submitted that workmen have been meted out
with hostile discrimination as juniors to them have been
regularized in service in proper pay scale and allowances
since their initial date of joining but the workmen have been
completely ignored in this matter.
17.It is stated that a demand notice was served upon the
management by registered A.D. post vide communication
dated 16.12.2010 and 23.12.2010, which was duly received in
their office, but no reply has been received, and it is
presumed that the demand has been rejected. Thereafter,
conciliation proceedings were also initiated, but same resulted
into failure due to adamant and non-co-operative attitude of
the management.
18.Workmen have prayed that an award be passed in their favour
thereby directing the management to regularize their services
on the post of ANMs with retrospective effect from their
respective initial date of joining or any other date into the Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.15
16:10:17
+0530
Award 7 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
employment in the regular pay scale of Rs.5200-20200/-
along with all attendant benefits either monetary or non-
monetary and they are entitled to parity with similarly
situated workmen employed with the Govt. of NCT of Delhi
and discharging the similar nature of duties and designated as
contractual ANMs with retrospective effect and they be
accordingly paid the entire difference of salary on the
principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" from their initial
joining onwards and all consequential benefits thereof.
Workmen have also prayed for the cost of litigation as
provide in Section 11 (7) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Written Statement
19.In the written statement, it is stated that the present dispute is
not an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2 (k) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and the Union has no locus standi to
raise the present dispute as the Union is not a recognized
Union.
20.It is stated that the present dispute has not been properly
espoused by the Union and no demand notice has been served
upon the management as such the present dispute is not an
industrial dispute.
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:10:25 +0530
Award 8 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
21.It is stated that as per the Recruitment Rules for the post of
ANM, the same is liable to be filled up by way of passing the
test conducted by the DSSSB and the claimants have been
engaged on contract basis for the specific period till the
proper recruitment is made through DSSSB. It is stated that
there is no policy of regularization of contract ANMs in the
MCD and the regularization policy in the management is only
for daily wagers, whereas the claimants have been engaged
on contract which they duly accepted on a consolidated
monthly salary.
22.It is stated that present case is not maintainable in view of the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Uma Rani vs.
Registrar Cooperative Societies (2004) 7 SCC 112 as well as
the case titled as Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi.
Other averments made in the statement of claim have been
denied and dismissal of the claim has been prayed for.
Issues
23.On 07.10.2013, on the basis of pleadings of the parties,
following issues were framed:
1) Whether present dispute is an Industrial Dispute as defined
in section 2 (k) of Industrial Disputes Act? OPW
2) Whether the present claim of the workmen has been
properly espoused by the Union? OPW
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD Date:
GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.04.15
16:10:31
+0530
Award 9 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
3) Whether any notice of demand was served upon
management, if not, its effect? OPW
4) Whether Hospital Employees Union has locus standi to
raise the present dispute? OPW
5) As per terms of reference?
Workman's Evidence
24.In order to prove their entitlement, workmen examined
themselves as WW1 and WW2 and tendered their evidence
by way of an affidavit Ex.WW1/A and WW2/A. They
deposed on the lines of their claim. WW-1 has proved the
documents as Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/9 and WW-2 proved
the documents as Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/8 and has also
relied upon the documents exhibited trough the statement of
WW-1. Workmen also examined Sh. Surender Bhardwaj,
Secretary of Union as WW-3 to prove the espousal of their
cause. He has relied upon document already exhibited as
Ex.WW1/7.
Management's Evidence
25.Management examined MW1 Sushil Chand Rustagi
Administrative Officer (Health) who tendered his evidence by
way of an affidavit Ex.MW1/A. He proved documents as
Ex. MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/5. Digitally
signed by
SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:10:38
+0530
Award 10 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
26.Final arguments have been heard at length as advanced by
both the parties. I have gone through the documents,
pleadings as well as arguments of parties.
27.It is argued on behalf of workmen that the workmen were
appointed after going through an open selection process
conducted by duly constituted Selection Board and they
fulfills the criteria of recruitment rules. It is stated that
workmen have been working against sanctioned vacant post
and their conduct has always remained satisfactory. It is
submitted that in view of law laid down in Chief Conservative
of Forest and Anr., (1996) 2 SCC 293, Project Director Dep. Of
Rural Development Vs. Workman, 2019 SCC Online Delhi 7996
and Govt. Of NCT of Delhi Vs. Nisha & Ors. W.P.(C) No.
15950/2023, Management is bound to regularize the services
of workmen w.e.f. date of their initial joining the service.
28.Ld. AR for the management has argued that the dispute of the
workmen has not been espoused properly by the Union. That
the Union itself is not recognized by the management and as
such, the Hospital Employees Union has no locus standi to
raise the present dispute. It is also argued that the workmen
were merely working as contract labour and as such services
of the workmen cannot be regularized. It is further argued
that the dispute was raised in the present matter by the
Digitally
signed by
workmen with inordinate delay. It is further argued that for SHARAD SHARAD
GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:10:50
+0530
Award 11 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
regularization to the post of ANM the concerned workmen
have to pass test to be conducted by DSSSB. It is further
argued that at every renewal of their contract, the workmen
had stated that they would not claim regularization.
Analysis and Discussion
Issue No.1: Whether present dispute is an Industrial Dispute
as defined in section 2 (k) of Industrial Disputes Act? OPW
29.Onus to prove this issue was on the workman. Section 2 (k)
of the Industrial Dispute, reads as under:
"Industrial dispute" means any dispute or
difference between employers and employers, or
between employers and workmen or between
workmen and workmen which is connected with
the employment or non-employment or the
terms of employment or with the condition of
labour, of any person"
30.From the definition of Industrial Dispute given in Section 2
(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act, it is clear that any dispute
between the employer and employer or between the employer
and workmen or workmen & workmen, which is connected
with the employment or non employment or terms and
conditions of the employment would be treated as an
industrial dispute. Present dispute is in respect of
regularization of the workmen on the post of ANMs in proper
scale and thus, is covered by definition of Industrial Dispute
under Section 2 (k). Further argument of the management is SHARAD
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.15
16:11:16
+0530
Award 12 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
that the workmen are contractual workers and are not covered
in the definition of workman and for this reason also the
present dispute is not an industrial dispute. Vide Section 2(s)
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, definition of 'workman' is as
follows:
"Workman" means any person (including an
apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,
whether the terms of employment be express or
implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding
under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,
includes any such person who has been dismissed,
discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,
discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,
but does not include any such person(i) who is
subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Army Act,
1950, or the Navy Act, 1957; or (ii) who is
employed in the police service or as an officer or
other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is
employed mainly in a managerial or administrative
capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a
supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten
thousand rupees per mensem or exercises, either by
the nature of the duties attached to the office or by
reason of the powers vested in him, functions
mainly of a managerial nature."
31. It is not in dispute that workmen have been working on the
post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) with the
management. There is no assertion whatsoever on the part of
the management that workmen are working in any managerial
or administrative capacity with the management, or even that Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.15
16:11:23
+0530
Award 13 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
they were working in any supervisory capacity with the
management at the time of raising of industrial dispute.
32. Furthermore, in the facts of the present case, it is not
disputed that the workmen joined the service of management
no.1 w.e.f. 01.08.2001 and 25.9.2005 respectively and their
contracts were renewed from time to time every six months.
The same suggests that the post of ANM is of perennial
nature. Furthermore, although contention of management is
that one day break was given to the workmen after
completion of six months of service, MW-1 admitted that the
object of giving one day break in service was to ensure that
the workmen may not have continuous service to their credit.
It is well settled having been held in Mahanadi Coalfields
Limited Vs. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union 2024
INSC 199 that workers who are engaged in performance of
work which is perennial or permanent in nature cannot be
classified as contractual workers. Furthermore, it has been
held in MCD Vs. Sandeep Yadav 2024 DHC 4704 that even
contractual workers cannot be kept out of the definition of
workman as defined in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act 1947. Workmen are accordingly held to be ' workman'
under the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended up to date).
Accordingly, issue is decided accordingly in their favor. Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:11:30 +0530
Award 14 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
Issue No.2: Whether the present claim of the workmen has
been properly espoused by the Union? OPW
33.It is submitted by AR for the management that the present
dispute is not an industrial dispute as the same is not properly
espoused by the Union.
34.Management has taken an objection in its written statement
that the present dispute is not an industrial dispute as the
same is not properly espoused by the Union. In order to prove
the espousal, workmen examined WW3 Surender Bhardwaj,
Secretary, Municipal Employees Union who deposed that the
union espoused the cause of the workmen and he also relied
upon document Ex. WW1/7 i.e. resolution for raising the
cause of workmen. WW-3 was also cross examined with
regard to the espousal. However, his veracity could not be
shaken. The management also failed to elicit anything in
cross-examination to show how the espousal was not as per
law. Thus, the veracity of the assertion of workmen regarding
espousal of their cause could not be shaken by the
management.
35.Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Omji Srivastava and Ors. vs.
P.W.D./C.P.W.D., 2023/DHC/002013 decided on 17.03.2023,
wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court after relying upon the
case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.H. Jadhav v. M/s Forbes SHARAD Digitally signed
by SHARAD
GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.15
16:11:36
+0530
Award 15 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
Gokak Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1089 of 2005, decided on
11.02.2005 has observed that there is no strict format
required for a union espousing the cause of the workman, and
this can vary and may also include resolutions or other forms
of evidence depending on the case to case. Even in the
absence of formal resolution, the court relied upon various
documents such as statement of claim filed before the
conciliation officer, legal demand notice, authorization letters
etc. among other documents and held that the cause of the
workman have been properly espoused by Union.
36.Also, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pratap
Singh & Anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, WP(C) No.
676/2013 vide order dated 04.02.2013 reversed the findings of
the Ld. Labour Court on the issue of espousal by categorizing
it as hyper-technical and held that the cause of the workman
is properly espoused by the union.
37.Even otherwise, Demand notice Ex.WW1/1 dated 23.12.2010
and Ex.WW2/1 dated 16.12.2010 were sent on the letter head
of the Union. A claim was also raised by the Union on behalf
of the workmen before the Conciliation Officer vide
Ex.WW1/8. Thus, the documentary evidence, as well as the
oral testimony of WW-3, clearly establish that the cause of
the workmen has been properly espoused by the Municipal
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.15
16:11:44
+0530
Award 16 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
Employees Union. The arguments of the management in this
regard are, thus, liable to be rejected. Thus, issue no.2 is
decided in favour of the workmen and against the
management.
Issue No.3: Whether any notice of demand was served upon
management, if not, its effect? OPW
38.Management has contended that no demand notice has been
served upon them prior to raising the present industrial
dispute, hence the same is not maintainable. On the other
hand, the workmen have placed reliance upon Ex.WW1/1 &
WW2/1 i.e. copy of legal demand notice dated 23.12.2010
and 16.12.2010 and its postal receipt Ex.WW1/2 & WW2/2
to establish that management was duly served the demand
notice and consequently, it was presumed that their demand
was rejected. MW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that
the address of the management in the notices Ex.WW1/1 and
Ex.WW2/1 and the postal receipts Ex.WW1/2 and
Ex.WW2/2 was correct. Thus, to my mind the workmen have
been able to show that the legal notices were duly dispatched
on the correct address of the management. The same to my
mind is sufficient to show that legal demand notice was duly
sent to the management by the workmen. Further more, the
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:11:51 +0530
Award 17 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
workmen had filed a claim before the Conciliation Officer
vide Ex.WW1/8.
39.Even otherwise, in "Workmen of M.C.D. vs. M.C.D., W.P.(C)
No. 13023/2005 decided on 06.08.2007", the Hon'ble High
Court has held that making a written demand is not a sine qua
non for raising an industrial dispute. Once the appropriate
Government has passed an administrative order referring an
industrial dispute for adjudication to the industrial
adjudicator, it is to be assumed that an administrative decision
was arrived at by the Government after examining the
material placed on the record that there exists an industrial
dispute. Thus, issue no.3 stands answered in favor of the
workman and against the management.
Issue No.4: Whether Hospital Employees Union has locus
standi to raise the present dispute? OPW
40.It is submitted on behalf of the management that the Union
has got no locus-standi to file the present claim as the union is
not the recognized Union of the management.
41.Management has not led any evidence in support of the
contention that the Union has no locus standi to raise the
present dispute. Pertinently MW-1 Sh. Sushil Chand Rustagi
in his cross-examination dated 05.04.2022 stated that he did Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.15
16:12:03
+0530
Award 18 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
not know if the Hospital Employees Union was one of the
largest Union of the health workers of MCD or if it was
registered under Trade Union Act or if it was recognized by
the management. Furthermore, MW-1 was further cross
examine on this aspect on the next date of hearing i.e.
05.09.2022. In his cross-examination conducted on the said
date he stated that he had not inquired from the management
if the Hospital Employees Union was the largest Union of
health workers of the MCD or if it was registered under the
Trade Unions Act or if it was recognized by MCD from the
last date of hearing i.e. 05.04.2022. Thus, other than bald
assertions the management failed to bring on record anything
to suggest that the Hospital Employees Union was not
recognized by the management. Rather, MW-1 failed to even
inquire from the management if the Union had been
recognized by the management. On the other hand, workmen
have examined Sh. Surender Bhardwaj, Secretary of the
Union as WW-3 who has deposed that in the month of
October 2010 the claimant/workman became the member of
the Union. During the course of cross-examination of WW-3
not even a single question has been put to him with regard to
the locus-standi of the Union to raise the present dispute.
Even otherwise, it is well settled having been held in Indian
Oxygen Ltd Vs. The workmen as represented by Indian
Oxygen Karamchari Union 1979 AIR 1196 (SC) that even an Digitally
signed by
SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:12:10
+0530
Award 19 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
unrecognized or minority Union can raise an Industrial
Dispute. In the facts of the present case, it has been held that
the cause of the workmen was duly espoused by the Union.
Thus, in totality of facts, even if it is assumed that the
Employees Union was not recognized by the management,
the said fact is of no consequence. In view of this position,
issue no.4 is decided in favour of the workmen and against
the management.
Issue No.5: As per terms of reference? OPW
42.It is admitted by the Management that the working hours of
the workmen and their permanent counterparts in regular pay-
scale are same and identical. It is further admitted that the
workmen are working along with regular and permanent
ANM. It is also admitted by MW-1 that the details given in
Para 1 of the statement of claim filed by the workmen are
correct. It is further admitted by MW-1 that Kamini Arya and
Suman Lata are working as ANM w.e.f. 01.08.2001 and
25.09.2005 respectively till date. It is further admitted by
him that the management had advertised the post of ANM in
newspapers for recruitment to which the concerned workmen
and others had applied for. It is also admitted by MW-1 that
the workmen were appointed as ANM after following due
process of appointment by the management. Thus, it has
come on record that the applicants were appointed through a SHARAD Digitally signed
by SHARAD
GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:12:20 +0530
Award 20 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
selection process. MW-1 further asserted that many other
candidates who were not found eligible were rejected by the
selection board of the management. MW-1 further admitted
that the workmen fulfilled the requisite qualifications for the
post of ANM. MW-1 further admitted that the concerned
workmen were working against vacant post of ANM carrying
regular pay scale and attendant benefits. He also admitted
that the nature of duties, working hours and responsibilities of
the workmen were same and identical viz-a-viz their regular
an permanent counter-parts. He admitted that the concerned
workmen fulfill the requisite qualification as per recruitment
rules of MCD. Although he state that he could not say
regarding the work and conduct of the workmen, he
volunteered that the contracts of ANM were renewed every
six months on their work and conduct being satisfactory.
43.There is no dispute about the fact that the workmen have been
discharging the duties of ANM from their initial dates of
joining and till date. MW-1 admitted that the workmen are
working against vacant posts of ANM from initial date of
joining till date. It is a matter of record that MW-1 in his
evidence affidavit asserted that workman Suman Lata was no
more on the roll of respondent/management in any capacity, it
is a matter of record that the said evidence affidavit was filed
in the year 2018. It is a matter of record that the workman
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:12:29 +0530Award 21 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 “Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD“
Suman Lata had filed LIR No. 681/2022 against the act of the
management and vide order dated 17.12.2025, workman was
held entitled to be re-instated with continuity in service on the
post of ANM along with full back wages from the date of her
termination.
44.Even though the workmen were stated to be engaged on
contract basis, however, management failed to show as to
why it had to resort to hiring workers as such despite it being
a permanent and perennial nature of work.
45. In “Deen Bandu Garg & Others Vs South Delhi Muncipal
Corporation & Others, WP (C) 11693/2019″, decided on
16.04.2025, Hon’ble High Court regularized the service of the
workmen by holding that:
(i) the applicants have rendered continuous and uninterrupted
service for the MCD for decades except, in some cases, for
temporary summer vacation breaks,
(ii) they are working as teachers, so that their work is
perennial and their need continuous,
(iii) they were appointed against sanctioned posts,
(iv) they were appointed after a due process of selection,
following an advertisement, which required the applicants to
possess all essential qualifications for the post, and satisfy the
age stipulations, and Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:12:35 +0530Award 22 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 “Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD“
(v) they are directly employed under the MCD and are under
their supervision.
46.In the present case also the following facts emerge:
a) Workmen have rendered continuous and uninterrupted
service for more than 20 years.
b) Workmen are performing the permanent and perennial
nature of work as a ANM.
c) At the time when workmen were appointed, there were
vacant posts of ANMs available with the management and
they were working against vacant post of ANM from their
initial dates of joining.
d) There is nothing on record to indicate that the workmen
does not fulfill qualifications for the job.
e) During the course of the employment, the services of
workmen were found to be satisfactory and there was no
complaint against them.
f) The management admitted that the work, duties, and
number of working hours of the workmen are identical to
those of the regular and permanent employees of
management.
47.Management has contended that the workmen have to
undergo the appropriate employment procedure through
DSSSB for seeking regularization as per settled law and Digitally
signed by
SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:13:04
+0530Award 23 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 “Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD“
Recruitment Rules. However, MW-1 as already observed
admitted that the workmen fulfilled the requisite
qualifications for the post of ANM. Furthermore, the
management failed to bring on record any policy specifically
pertaining to regularization of ANM. The management also
failed to bring on record the Recruitment Rules of the post of
ANM to suggest that regular and permanent ANM can only
be appointed through DSSSB. The management also failed to
bring to the notice of this Tribunal any law under which
ANMs can only be regularized or appointed on regular posts
through DSSSB. These arguments of the management are
thus liable to be rejected.
48.Even otherwise, this Tribunal emphasizes that no rule/policy
of the management can outweigh the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whatever the policy may be, it should align with labour laws.
The management cannot, under the guise of “policy”, perform
actions that are strictly prohibited under the Industrial
Disputes Act.
49.The Industrial Disputes Act at Item No. 10 of Fifth Schedule
outlines Unfair Labour Practice as “to employ workmen as
badlies, casual temporaries, and to continue them as such for
years with the object of depriving them of the status and
privileges of permanent workmen.” Such practice is not only Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.15
16:12:46
+0530
Award 24 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
prohibited under Section 25T but also punishable under
Section 25U of Industrial Disputes Act.
50.Industrial Tribunals have a duty to examine the reasons/
justification recorded by the management for appointing
workers on a temporary basis and assess these reasons in
accordance with the Industrial Dispute Act. Engaging workers
for permanent and perennial work and treating them as
casual/muster roll/contract/daily wager/temporary workers
without recorded reasons will act against the management and
suggest an element of unfair labor practice, as it exploits the
services of workers without providing them their due wages,
and no justifiable reasons have been recorded by
management.
51.The management, neither in its written statement nor during
the course of the proceedings, has provided any reasons as to
why it resorted to appointing the workmen on a daily-wages
basis in the year 2001 and 2005, especially when the work of
a ANM is permanent and perennial in nature, and the
workmen were appointed against a sanctioned vacant post
from the very beginning.
52.Management has also argued that the workmen have duly
accepted their appointment out of their free will with all the
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:13:17 +0530
Award 25 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
terms and conditions without any protest, therefore, at this
stage they cannot retract from their acceptance and claim
regularization w.e.f. their initial date of joining. This tribunal
does not find any consensus with this argument of the
management. Merely because the workmen have “consented”
to their appointment on the post of ANM on contract basis,
that does not give the license to the management to indulge in
unfair labour practices. Given that the workmen are a lowly
paid employee and considering their socio-economic
background, it is unreasonable to assume that they possesses
equal bargaining power in determining the terms of their
appointment, including decisions related to their
regularization. Reliance placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v.
Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156.
53.Likewise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dhirendra Chamoli and Ors vs State of UP., (1986)1 SCC 637
held that employees, especially those in low-wage categories,
often have no choice but to accept employment under
exploitative terms offered by the employer due to the
prevailing conditions of unemployment and their socio-
economic background. The fact that these employees
accepted employment with full knowledge of the terms does
not absolve the government or the employer from the Digitally
signed by
SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:13:24
+0530Award 26 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 “Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD“
mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution, which also implies equal pay for work of equal
value. Similarly, in the Officer Incharge Defence
Standardization Cell vs Mukesh Kumar, 2013 SCC Online
Del. 2066 , the Hon’ble Delhi High Court emphasized that the
employer cannot use contract stipulations as a tool of
exploitation. Their unilateral imposition of oppressive and
unreasonable conditions of service, which the workman has
little choice but to accept, cannot be justified. Thus, the
argument of the management in this regard is liable to be
rejected.
54.In view of the admitted position and the material on record,
this Tribunal holds that the management has clearly
committed an unfair labour practice as enumerated in Item
No. 10 of the Fifth Schedule read with Section 2(ra) of the
Industrial Disputes Act by employing the workmen against
the sanctioned vacant post of ANM but treating them merely
as a contractual employee for performing the permanent
nature of work of a ANM and continued them for years with
the intent of depriving them of the status and privileges of a
regular and permanent employee.
55.Moreover, Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 720/2024
titled as “Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Pradeep Rana &
Digitally signed
Ors.” rejected the contention of the management that by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.15
16:13:33
+0530
Award 27 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 “Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD“
regularizing the workmen would lead to seniority disputes,
financial burden, and was against the principles laid down in
the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and
others, Appeal (Civil) 3595-3612 of 1999, decided on
10.04.2006, relied upon by the management in the present
matter.
56.In “Deen Bandu Garg & Others Vs South Delhi Muncipal
Corporation & Others, WP (C) 11693/2019 “, Hon’ble Delhi
High Court has held as under:
37.4 At the cost of reiteration, we deem it
appropriate to once again state that Uma Devi
does not hold, at any point of the judgment, that
employees who satisfied the stipulated
educational and experience qualifications and
age requirement, who applied in response to an
open advertisement, and who were subjected to
a regular selection process in which all
applicants were dispassionately evaluated, and
who continued for several years, or decades,
without complaint, against posts which were
sanctioned, have no right to seek regularisation,
and can be terminated at any point of time.
Jaggo holds that the manner in which Uma Devi
has been interpreted and applied over the course
of time has resulted in weaponization of the
judgment. In our view, accepting the stand that
the MCD seeks to canvas in these petitions,
would not only weaponize, but would in fact
demonize, Uma Devi.
57.In above noted authoritative decision, Hon’ble Delhi High
Court has observed that the employees who satisfy the
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:13:41 +0530Award 28 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 “Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD“
stipulated qualifications for the service and who continue for
several years, or decades, without complaint, against posts
which were sanctioned, have a right to seek regularization,
and the judgment of “Uma Devi” does not affect right of such
employees. Hence, the reliance of the management on the
judgment of “Uma Devi” (supra) to argue that this Industrial
Tribunal does not have the power to regularize the services of
the workman concerned is misplaced in law.
58.In industrial adjudications, where the employer has kept the
permanent posts unfilled and indulged in the unfair labour
practice of keeping workmen on a temporary basis over
prolonged periods of time, the statutory power of the
industrial adjudicator to grant relief to the workmen,
including the status of permanency, continues, in such a case,
Industrial Tribunal has the power to pass an order for
regularization of the workman.
59.In “Jaggo Vs Union of India & Others, SLP (C ) 5580/2024,”
Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
27. In light of these considerations, in our
opinion, it is imperative for government
departments to lead by example in providing
fair and stable employment. Engaging workers
on a temporary basis for extended periods,
especially when their roles are integral to the
organization’s functioning, not only contravenes Digitally signedinternational labour standards but also exposes SHARAD
by SHARAD
GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.15
16:13:47
+0530
Award 29 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
the organization to legal challenges and
undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair
employment practices, government institutions
can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation,
promote job security, and uphold the principles
of justice and fairness that they are meant to
embody. This approach aligns with international
standards and sets a positive precedent for the
private sector to follow, thereby contributing to
the overall betterment of labour practices in the
country.
60. Recently, in Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr . in
Civil Appeal no. 8558 of 2018, vide judgment dated 19.08.2005
the Hon’ble Apex Court regularized the services of the
workmen and has categorically held that :
“18.Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-
hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The
State Departments must keep and produce accurate
establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing
arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence,
why they prefer precarious engagement over
sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If
“constraint” is invoked, the record should show what
alternatives were considered, why similarly placed
workers were treated differently, and how the chosen
course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human
consequences of prolonged insecurity is not
sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that
should inform every decision affecting those who
keep public offices running.”
61.Workmen gave sustained contribution to the management for
decades altogether. There is no adverse remark against them.
In view of undisputed service of the workmen and the SHARAD Digitally
by SHARAD
GUPTA
signed
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:13:54 +0530Award 30 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 “Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD“
perennial nature of duty coupled with vacancies of ANMs, the
fact that as per record, they fulfilled the requisite
qualifications for the post of ANM the service of the
workmen is entitled to be regularized on the post of ANM
from the date of their initial appointment w.e.f. 01.08.2001
and 25.09.2005.
62.As far as the question of consequential benefits is concerned,
since the workmen are performing the same work as being
performed by their regular counterparts and there was no
change in their work, working hours, roles, and
responsibilities viz a viz their regular counter-parts, as such, it
is held that workmen are entitled to the consequential
benefits.
63.So far as the demand of workmen for difference of salary on
principle of equal pay for equal work is concerned, reference
can be made to the settled proposition of law on this aspect.
64.In Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (1986) 1
SCC 637, it was held as follows:-
2.These writ petitions have been initiated on the basis of two letters,
one addressed by Dhirendra Chamoli and the other by Mohan Singh
both of whom are employees of Nehru Yuvak Kendra, Dehradun. The
complaint made in the writ petitions is that there are a number of
Digitally signedpersons who are engaged by Nehru Yuvak Kendra as casual workers on
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.15
16:14:01
+0530Award 31 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 “Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD“
daily wage basis and though they are doing the same work as is
performed by Class IV employees appointed on regular basis, they are
not being given the same salary and allowances as are being paid to
Class IV employees. Since Nehru Yuvak Kendras have been started by
the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India, we issued notice to the
Central Government to show cause why the employees of the Nehru
Yuvak Kendras performing the same duties as Class IV employees
should not be paid the same salary and allowances. The under Secretary
to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Sports has filed a counter affidavit in
which it is alleged that the Nehru Yuvak Kendras have been started at
different places in the country as temporary organisations and they have
not yet been made permanent, with the result that there are no
sanctioned posts of Class IV employees and the employees who are
engaged by different Nehru Yuvak Kendras are taken as casual
employees on daily wage basis. The argument envisaged in the counter
affidavit is that since there are no sanctioned posts to which regular
appointments can be made, the casual employees employed by different
Nehru Yuvak Kendras cannot claim to receive the same salary and
perquisites as Class IV employees appointed regularly to sanctioned
posts. But while raising this argument, it is conceded in the counter
affidavit that “the persons engaged by the Nehru Yuvak Kendras
perform the same duties as is performed by Class IV employees
appointed on regular basis against sanctioned posts. If that be so, it is
difficult to understand how the Central Government can deny to these
employees the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV
employees regularly appointed against sanctioned posts. It is peculiar
on the part of the Central Government to urge that these persons took up
employment with the Nehru Yuvak Kendras knowing fully well that
they will be paid only daily wages and therefore they cannot claim Digitally signed
by SHARAD
more. This argument lies ill in the mouth of the Central Government for SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:14:10 +0530
Award 32 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 "Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD"
it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and a Welfare
State committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to
advance such an argument. It must be remembered that in this country
where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of
people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative
terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees
accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only
daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of
service as other Class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the
Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in
Article 14 of the Constitution. This Article declares that there shall be
equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is
the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal
value. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru
Yuvak Kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the
same duties as Class IV employees, must therefore get the same salary
and conditions of service as Class IV employees. It makes no difference
whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they
are performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and
conditions of service as Class IV employees.
65.Similarly, the ratio in “MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & Others W.P.
(C ) No.7947/2010″ can be adverted to on the aspect where the
similar relief was awarded to the workman therein, by the
Central Administrative Tribunal and writ petition filed against
the order was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court. Hence, the
workman is found entitled to the difference of salary on
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.15
16:14:17
+0530
Award 33 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 “Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD“
principle of equal pay for equal work w.e.f. her initial date of
joining onwards.
66.In view of above discussions, it is held that the workmen are
entitled to regularization in service on the post of ANM w.e.f.
01.08.2001 and 25.09.2005 along with payment of entire
difference of salary on the “Principle of Equal Pay for Equal
Work” with all consequential benefits. Hence, the terms of
reference/ the issue no. 5 is answered in favor of the workmen
and against the management.
Relief
67.In view of the above findings, it is held that the workman
Smt. Kamini Arya W/o Sh. Ajay Kumar is entitled to
regularization in service on the post of ANM w.e.f.
01.08.2001 and Smt. Suman Lata W/o Sh. Rakesh is entitled
to regularization in service on the post of ANM w.e.f.
25.09.2005 along with payment of entire difference of salary
on the “Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work” with all
consequential benefits.
68.Management is directed to implement the award within 60
days of its publication failing which the management will be
liable to pay an interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of
Digitally signed
by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.15
16:14:24 +0530Award 34 of 35
POIT No: 542/2016 “Kamini Arya & 1 Anr. Vs MCD“
terms of reference i.e. 11.12.2013 till its realization. The
award is passed accordingly.
69.Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
70. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in the open court
on 15th April, 2026 Digitally signed
SHARAD by SHARAD
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.04.15
16:14:32 +0530
( SHARAD GUPTA )
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-II,
Rouse Avenue District Court
New Delhi
Award 35 of 35