Delhi District Court
Bhopal Singh vs M/S Muncipal Corporation Of Delhi on 6 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANJUSHA WADHWA:
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
F.No. 24 (68)ID/133/E/22/Lab. Ref./2023/3505
Dated: 03.07.2023.
POIT NO.: 41/2023
CNR No. DLCT13 003423 2023
Workman:
Sh. Bhopal Singh,
S/o Sh. Sagwa,
Phone No- 9310813341
R/o H. No. 671, Gali No.4, Near Railway Station,
Saboli Vistar, Delhi-110093.
Aadhaar Card No. 9561 1840 6413
Working as Nalla Beldar
in Engineering Deptt. M-III,
Shahdara North Zone, MCD, Delhi.
Through
Municipal Employees' Union,
Agarwal Bhawan, G. T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi- 110054.
Vs.
The Management of :
M/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 1/31
through its Commissioner,
Dr. S. P. Mukherjee Civic Center,
J. L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi- 110054.
Date of Institution: : 18.07.2023
Date of Arguments : 24.03.2026.
Date of Award : 06.04.2026
AWAR D
1. The Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, has
referred the dispute between the parties named above for adjudication to this
tribunal with the following terms of reference:
(1) "Whether the demand of the workman Sh. Bhopal Singh S/o
Sh. Sagwa for regularization of his services on the post of Driver
since February, 2016 is legal and justified and if so, to what relief is
he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect"
(2) "Whether the demand of the workman Sh. Bhopal Singh S/o Sh.
Sagwa for counting the entire services rendered by him as daily
wager employee for the purpose of grant of pension to him for all
other retiral-cum death benefits to him under old pension scheme,
is legal and justified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?"
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 2/31
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
2. The workman states that he joined the management's employment as a
Nalla Beldar with effect from 01.08.2002 on a muster roll/daily wage
basis. His services were subsequently regularised with effect from
01.04.2006. It is claimed that the period of service rendered by the
workman on the muster roll from 01.08.2002 to 31.03.2006 should be
counted for the purpose of old pensionary benefits.
3. It is further stated that on 30.07.2013, the management issued a circular
creating 20 Driver posts in the DEMS Department and 20 driver posts in
the Engineering Department, both in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200
with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/-.
4. It is further stated that on 15.02.2016, the management issued a circular
inviting applications from regular Group-D employees holding heavy
vehicle driving licences for operating loader trucks, initially for a period
of one year, with the condition that the selected employees would be paid
a driving allowance to be decided later.
5. The workman states that he applied pursuant to the said circular,
expressed his willingness, qualified for the trade test, and was deployed
as a Driver w.e.f. 23.02.2016. At the time of submitting his willingness,
the management issued an office order stating that the selected employees
would be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 3/31
Rs. 2400/-. However, in March 2016, the management issued another
office order clarifying that the engagement would be purely temporary,
initially for a period of one year or until further orders, extendable based
on satisfactory performance. It is further stated that the management later
retracted from its earlier position and, instead of granting the said pay
scale, paid only Rs. 1200/- per month as an additional allowance, without
providing any other benefits.
6. It is further stated that, although the workman performed duties as a
driver, he continued to receive the salary associated with his substantive
post. The management issued five extension orders, each extending the
workman's engagement as a driver for an additional year. However, the
driving allowance remained constant at Rs. 1200/- per month
throughout.
7. It is further stated that, via circular dated 25.02.2022, the management
reverted the workman to his original post on the ground that no further
extension had been granted by the competent authority, directing the
Heads of Departments to take over official belongings and records from
Class-IV employees and send them back to their respective posts.
8. The workman further stated that the management's actions of failing to
regularise his services as a Driver, not providing a salary based on the
principle of equal pay for equal work, reverting him to his previous
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 4/31
position, and not extending the benefits of the old pension scheme are
illegal, unjustified, and constitute unfair labour practices.
9. It is also stated that the workman served a demand notice dated
21.09.2022 upon the management, which was duly received but not acted
upon. Conciliation proceedings were then initiated; however, they failed
due to the alleged non-cooperative attitude of the management, leading
to the current reference before this Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MANAGEMENT
10. The management filed a written statement raising preliminary objections
that the present dispute has not been properly espoused by any union, no
valid demand notice was served upon the management, that the reference
has been made mechanically without application of mind, and the present
claim is wholly barred by delay and latches, and as such, the workman is
not entitled to any relief.
11. On merits, the management stated that the workman was engaged vide
circular dated 15.02.2016 as a driver for operating loader trucks, and the
workman has not denied the terms and conditions of the said circular, which
clearly stated that he was engaged for a period of one year, making the entire
engagement entirely temporary. The management denied the remaining
allegations in the statement of claim and prayed the dismissal of the present
claim petition.
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 5/31
REPLICATION
Replication was filed on behalf of the workman wherein he reiterated the
contents of statement of claim as true and correct and denied the contrary
averments made in the written statement.
12. Vide order dated 16.10.2025, the following issues were framed by this
Tribunal as:-
(1) Whether the present claim is barred by delay and latches? OPM
(2) Whether the claim of the workman has been properly espoused by the
union? OPW.
(3)Whether the order dated 25.02.2022 is illegal and unreasonable, if so,
its effect? OPW
(4) As per terms of reference? OPW
(5) Relief.
13. To prove the case, the workman has examined himself as WW1 and closed
his evidence. On the other side, the management has examined Sh. Kamal
Kumar Gupta, Assistant Engineer (Civil), M-III, Shahdara North Zone,
MCD, as MW1.
14. Heard Ld. AR for the parties and perused the record. The issue-wise finding
is given in the following paragraphs.
Issue no.1 : Whether the present claim is barred by delay and latches?
OPM
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 6/31
15. The onus to prove this issue was on the management. According to the
management, the workman was appointed as Nalla Beldar on muster
roll/daily wage basis as a daily wager with effect from 01.08.2002 and
was paid minimum wages until his regularisation on 01.04.2006, and
thereafter, pursuant to circular dated 15.02.2016, he was appointed as a
driver w.e.f. 23.02.2016 on deputation basis and was reverted to the post
of Nalla Beldar vide circular dated 25.02.2022. It is submitted that no
dispute was raised prior to the issuance of the legal notice dated
21.09.2022. Hence, according to the management, the claim is barred by
delay and laches.
16. On the other side, ld. AR for the workman submitted that there is no delay
in raising the present dispute as the workman was engaged as a driver
w.e.f. 23.02.2016 and was reverted to the post of Nalla Beldar vide
circular dated 25.02.2022 and the present dispute was raised vide legal
notice dated 21.09.2022. It is further stated that as per section 10(1) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate government 'at any
time', may refer an industrial dispute for adjudication, if it is of the
opinion that such an industrial dispute between the workman & the
employer exists or is apprehended.
17. The word "at any time" has been interpreted by the judicial interpretation
in Sapan Kumar Pandit vs U.P. State Electricity Board And Ors 2001
(6) SCC 222, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 7/31
"........The words at any time as used in the section are prima
facie indicator to a period without boundary. But such an
interpretation making the power unending would be pedantic.
There is inherent evidence in this sub-section itself to indicate
that the time has some circumscription. The words where the
Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is
apprehended have to be read in conjunction with the words at
any time. They are, in a way, complimentary to each other. The
Governments power to refer an industrial dispute for
adjudication has thus one limitation of time and that is, it can be
done only so long as the dispute exists. In other words, the period
envisaged by the enduring expression at any time terminates
with the eclipse of the industrial dispute. It, therefore, means that
if the dispute existed on the day when the reference was made
by the Government it is idle to ascertain the number of years
which elapsed since the commencement of the dispute to
determine whether the delay would have extinguished the power
of the Government to make the reference.
Hence the real test is, was the industrial dispute in existence on
the date of reference for adjudication? If the answer is in the
negative then the Governments power to make a reference would
have extinguished. On the other hand, if the answer is in positive
terms the Government could have exercised the power whatever
be the range of the period which lapsed since the inception of the
dispute. That apart, a decision of the government in this regard
cannot be listed on the possibility of what another party would
think whether any dispute existed or not. The section indicates
that if in the opinion of the Government the dispute existed then
the Government could make the reference. The only authority
which can form such an opinion is the government. If the
government decides to make the reference there is a presumption
that in the opinion of the government there existed such a
dispute."
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 8/31
18. In Raghubir Singh vs Gen. Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar 2014
(10) SCC 301, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the
dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the
power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of
adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not
adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to
exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory
power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial
dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the
jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted
by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra.
Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power
under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of
dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with
the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan
Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra."
19. In SLP (C) No. 16129 of 2015 titled as Prabhakar vs. Joint Director,
Sericulture Department & Another(Supra), Dr. Prabhakar, whose
employment was terminated in 1985, raised a dispute fourteen years later
in 1999. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding the fact
that the law of limitation does not apply, it is for the workman to show
that there is a dispute in praesenti.
20. In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing
Service Society Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 82 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
as under:
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 9/31
"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137
of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable
to the proceedings under the Act and that the relief under it
cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of
delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required
to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice
and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the
Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of
delay alone. Even in a case where the delay is shown to be
existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the
case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant
back wages to the Workman till the date he raised the demand
regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissal.
The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment
of part of the back wages instead of full back wages..........
11. In the instant case, the respondent management is not
shown to have taken any plea regarding delay as is evident
from the issues framed by the Labour Court. The only plea
raised in defence was that the Labour Court had no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference and the termination of
the services of the workman was justified. Had this plea been
raised, the workman would have been in a position to show
the circumstances preventing him in approaching the Court
at an earlier stage or even to satisfy the Court that such a plea
was not sustainable after the reference was made by the
Government. The learned Judges of the High Court,
therefore, were not justified in holding that the workman had
not given any explanation as to why the demand notice had
been issued after a long period. The findings of facts returned
by the High Court in writ proceedings, even without
pleadings were, therefore, unjustified……………”
21. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is that where the plea of delay is
raised by the employer, it is incumbent upon him to show what real
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 10/31
prejudice has been caused on account of such delay and even in a case
where the delay is shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or
board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by
declining to grant back wages to the Workman till the date he raised the
demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissal.
22. In the present case, the management has failed to state how there is delay
in raising the dispute. The workman raised the dispute vide legal notice
dated 21.09.2022 within a reasonable time of his reversion to the post of
Nalla Beldar vide circular dated 25.02.2022. During cross-examination,
WW-1 denied the suggestion that he had never raised any objection to the
management regarding the non-payment of the full pay scale for the
driver post. He voluntarily deposed that he had approached the Deputy
Commissioner several times to have his services regularised during the
period in which he performed the duties of a driver. As such, there is no
delay in raising the present dispute. Accordingly, this issue is decided in
favour of the workman and against the management.
Issue No. 2 : Whether the claim of the workman has been properly espoused
by the union? OPW.
23. The onus to prove this issue was on the workman. Ld. AR for the
management contended that the present dispute has not been espoused by
the union. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the workman submitted that the
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 11/31
workman was a member of the Municipal Employees Union, and that the
said union has espoused the workman’s grievance.
24. In order to give jurisdiction to the appropriate government to refer the
dispute to the Tribunal/Labour Court, it was essential for the workman to
show that his individual dispute for regularisation was sponsored or
espoused by the union of the workmen. The constitution bench of Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi)
Vs. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) Civil Appeal No.532/1963
decided on 16.03.1965 has held in paragraph No.3 as under:
“3. Section 2(k) defines an “industrial dispute” as meaning any
dispute or difference between employers and employees, or
between employers and workmen, or between workmen and
workmen, which is connected with the employment or
nonemployment or the terms of employment or with the
condition of labour, of any person. This definition shows that
before any dispute raised by any person can be said to be an
industrial dispute, it must be shown that it is connected with the
employment or non-employment of that person. This condition is
satisfied in the present case, because the dispute is in relation to the
dismissal of 18 workmen, and in that sense, it does relate either to
their employment or non-employment. The question however, still
remains whether it is a dispute between employers and workmen.
Literally construed, this definition may take within its sweep a
dispute between a single workman and his employer, because the
plural, in the context, will include the singular. Besides, in the
present case, the dispute is in fact between 18 workmen on the one
hand, and their employer on the other, and that satisfies the
requirement imposed by the fact that the word “workmen” in the
context is used in the plural. But the decisions of this Court have
consistently taken the view that in order that dispute between aPOIT- 41/2023 Page No. 12/31
single employee and his employer should be validly referred under
s. 10 of the Act, it is necessary that it should have been taken up by
the Union to which the employee belongs or by a number of
employees. On this view, a dispute between an employer and a
single employee cannot, by itself, be treated as an industrial
dispute, unless it is sponsored or espoused by the Union of
workmen or by a number of workmen. In other words, if a
workman is dismissed by his employer and the dismissed
workman’s case is that his dismissal is wrongful, he can
legitimately have the said dispute referred for adjudication before
an Industrial Tribunal under s. 10(1) of the Act, provided a claim
for such a reference is supported either by the Union to which he
belongs or by a number of workmen, vide Central Provinces
Transport Services v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan
MANU/SC/0067/1956 : (1957) ILLJ 27 SC and The Newspapers
Ltd. v. The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P. MANU/SC/0078/1957 :
(1957) IILLJ 1 SC.”
25. In the instant case, the workman has stated in para no. 19 of his evidence
by way of affidavit Exhibit WW1/A that he was a member of the
Municipal Employees Union and that his membership number is 60534.
He also stated that he had approached the Municipal Employees Union
for redressal of his dispute to regularise his services on the post of a
Driver since 23.02.2016 and to pay him the entire salary difference on the
principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” from his initial joining, along
with all consequential benefits and to calculate his entire service as a daily
wager employee for calculating pension and other retiral benefits. He
further deposed that on 06.09.2022, a resolution was passed to raise the
aforesaid grievance, and that the said resolution was signed by Shri
Surender Bhardwaj, General Secretary of the Union, in his presence.
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 13/31
26. The workman has also relied upon a copy of the legal demand notice
dated 21.09.2022, Ex WW-1/20, which was sent on the letterhead of the
Municipal Employees’ Union. He has also relied upon the Statement of
Claim Ex. WW1/21 filed before the Conciliation Officer of Govt. of NCT
of Delhi and resolution dated 06.09.2022 Ex. WW1/22, wherein the union
decided to raise an industrial dispute in favour of the workman.
27. Perusal of the resolution of the espousal meeting dated 06.09.2022 Ex.
WW-1/22 shows that the Municipal Employees Union resolved to take
up the cause of the workman, and on the basis of said resolution, the said
Union issued a legal demand notice dated 21.09.2022, Ex. WW1/20 and
filed the claim petition before the Conciliation Officer. Since the dispute
remained unsettled, the appropriate Government referred it for
adjudication. Needless to say, no format has been prescribed for
espousing the cause of the workman. Reliance is placed on the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in J.M Jhadav Vs Forbes Gokak Ltd
2005 (3) SCC 202 wherein it has been observed as under:-
“…………As far as espousal is concerned there is no particular
form prescribed to effect such espousal. Doubtless, the Union must
normally express itself in the form of a resolution which should be
proved if it is in issue. However proof of support by the Union may
also be available aliunde. It would depend upon the facts of each
case. The Tribunal had addressed its mind to the question,
appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary and found that
the Union had espoused the appellant’s cause. ………”
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 14/31
28. Pertinently, the Municipal Employees Union is a recognized union, and
the said union has not come forward to claim that it had not supported the
workman’s cause. During cross-examination, no questions were asked to
the workman (WW-1) regarding his membership in the Union.
29. In view of the above, the contention of the management that the present
dispute was not properly espoused by the Union has not been proved on
record. Accordingly, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the workman and
against the management.
Issue No. 3: Whether the order dated 25.02.2022 is illegal and
unreasonable, if so, its effect? OPW
And
Issue No. 4: As per terms of reference? OPW
30. Both the aforesaid issues are linked and thus being decided together. The
concern in the present case is the regularisation of the services of the
workman on the post of driver since 23.02.2016, and the counting of his
entire service rendered as a daily wager for the purpose of granting
pension and other retirement cum death benefits under the old pension
scheme.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE WORKMAN.
31. Learned AR for the workman submitted that the workman was appointed
as a driver on a vacant post after qualifying for the trade test and was in
possession of a driving licence. Therefore, his reversion to the post of
Nalla Beldar is an illegal and unfair trade practice.
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 15/31
32. It is further submitted that the workman was performing the same nature
of work as was being performed by regular drivers and, therefore, he was
entitled to be regularised on the post of Driver since 23.02.2016.
33. It is further submitted that the workman was given a fixed amount of
₹1200 per month in addition to the salary of Nala Beldar, though he was
entitled to the pay scale of a driver, i.e. ₹5200-20200 with grade pay of
₹2400.
34. It is further submitted that the workman was in fact promoted to the post
of a driver; however, the management used the term deputation in the
circular dated 15.02.2016, to deny the workman’s rights. It is his
contention that the deputation is normally done to an equivalent post in a
different department; in the present case, however, the workman was
posted to a higher post in the same department.
35. It is further submitted that the order dated 25.02.2022, by which extension
was not granted by the competent authority, is punitive in nature
inasmuch as it is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India
and the said order was issued without any prior notice to the workman
and as such it is also violative of section 9A of Industrial Disputes Act.
36. It is further submitted that the management had engaged the workman as
a driver on a fixed amount for more than five years with the object of
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 16/31
denying him a salary and the status of a regular driver. It is further
submitted that such action of the management falls under unfair labour
practice as enumerated in item number 10 of the fifth Schedule of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
37. It is further submitted that the entire service of the workman rendered by
him as a daily wager be calculated for the purpose of the grant of pension
and other retirement benefits under the Old Pension Scheme. Reliance is
placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi passed in W.P.
(C) 2060/2019, Dr Ravindra Narayan Mishra Vs Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur
Khalsa College and ors, decided on 19.05.2023.
SUBMISSION OF THE MANAGEMENT.
38. It is submitted that the workman was employed on a temporary basis on
the post of driver, and thus, he has no right to claim regularisation on the
said post. It is further submitted that, as per the Office order dated
16.07.2015, Ex. WW 1/3 and an office order dated 15.02.2016 Ex.
WW1/5, the engagement was purely temporary and for a period of one
year, which might be extended upon satisfactory performance of the
incumbents.
39. It is further submitted that the Office order dated 16.07.2015, Ex
WW-1/3, and the office order dated 15.02.2016, Ex. WW 1/ 5 clearly
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 17/31
stipulates that the engagement shall not entail or confer any right to stake
a claim for promotion to driver in the EDMC.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
40. It is admitted by the parties that the workman joined the management as
a Nala Belder with effect from 01.08.2002 on muster roll basis and was
regularized with effect from 01.04.2006. Thereafter, the management
issued a circular inviting applications from group D employees holding a
driving license and willing to work as drivers. The workman passed the
trade test and was engaged as a driver with effect from 23.02.2016. The
workman continued as a driver till the issuance of the Office order dated
25.02.2022 Ex. WW1/16 by which he was reverted to his previous post
of Nala Beldar.
41. The grievance of the workman is that he had worked as a driver for a
continuous period of about five years, and thus his reversion to the post
of Nala Beldar is nothing but a punitive action taken by the management.
On the other side, the management contended that the workman was
employed as a driver on a contract basis for a period of one year, which
was to be extended upon satisfactory work performance. He has placed
reliance on the office order dated 16.07.2015 Ex. WW-1/3 and office
order dated 15.02.2016 Ex. WW-1/5, which states that the engagement
shall not entail or confer any right upon the workman to claim promotion
as a driver in EDMC.
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 18/31
42. It is noted that vide circular dated 30.07.2013 Ex. WW-1/1, management
created 20 posts of driver for DEMS, EDMC and 20 posts of driver for
the Engineering Department, EDMC. Thereafter, vide circular dated
30.07.2014 Ex. WW-1/2, the management invited applications from
regular group D employees who possess a heavy driving licence and are
willing to work as a driver, for deputing them as drivers of loader trucks
of the DEMS department, initially for a period of one year. The said
circular further stated that candidates had to undergo trade tests conducted
by EE (Auto)SDMC before their deputation as drivers, and that the
selected candidates would be paid driving allowances, to be decided in
due course.
43. Subsequently, vide office order dated 16.07.2015 Ex. WW1/3 and office
order dated 15.02.2016, Ex. WW1/5, the engagement was stated to be
temporary in nature for a period of one year, which might be extended
upon satisfactory work performance, in the pay scale of Rs. 5020-20200
and GP of Rs. 2400/-, however, it was made clear that this shall not entail
or confer any right to stake claim for promotion as a driver in the EDMC.
Further, it is pertinent to note that vide subsequent office order dated
02.03.2016 Ex. WW1/9, the aforesaid orders regarding the grant of salary
to the selected employees in the pay band scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with
GP of Rs. 2400/- were cancelled. It was provided that the selected
candidates would be paid an additional remuneration of Rs. 1200/- per
month for working as drivers, and no other benefits would be provided,
and that the said engagement should not entail or confer any right to stake
a claim for promotion as drivers in the EDMC. In other words, the office
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 19/31
order dated 16.07.2015 Ex. WW1/3 as well as the office order dated
15.02.2016 Ex. WW-1/5 granting the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 + GP
Rs. 2400/- were superseded by the office order dated 02.03.2016 Ex.
WW1/9 inasmuch as the grant of salary in PB-1 was withdrawn.
44. It is also relevant to note that vide subsequent circular dated 03.07.2017,
Ex. WW1/10, the extension of 13 class-IV employees to perform duties
as truck drivers was extended for another year on the fixed additional
remuneration of Rs 1200/- pm. Again, vide office order dated 05.04.2018
Ex. WW1/11, the extension of 11 class-IV employees to work as drivers
was sanctioned for another year, up to 28.02.2019, or till the posts are
filled on a regular basis, or till further order, whichever is earlier, on the
fixed additional remuneration of Rs. 1200 pm. Similarly, vide circular
dated 21.06.2019 Ex. WW1/12 sanction was accorded for the extension
of 11 class-IV employees to perform as drivers for a further period of one
year on the aforesaid fixed remuneration. A similar circular was issued on
13.03.2020 Ex. WW1/13, and 19.03.2021 Ex. WW1/15. Notably, vide
circular dated 25.02.2022 Ex. WW1/16, sanction was not accorded to
extend the duties of class IV employees as drivers beyond 28.02.2022,
and they were sent back to their respective departments.
45. The aforesaid chronology of the circulars shows that the engagement of
Group ‘D’ employees to work as drivers was being extended on a yearly
basis before it was withdrawn by circular dated 25.02.2022 Ex WW-1/16,
which does not record the reason for the non-extension of the engagement
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 20/31
of the workman as a driver, although, as per the office order dated
16.07.2015 Ex WW- 1/3, it was subject to extension upon satisfactory
work performance. There is nothing on record to show that the workman
was not performing to the satisfaction of the management. In this regard,
one may also peruse the testimony of MW-1, who admitted that the
workman’s work and conduct remained satisfactory throughout his
service period. He further admitted that the nature of work, working
hours, role and responsibilities of the workman at the time when he was
working as a heavy vehicle driver were identical to those of a regular and
permanent driver. He admitted that Dhyan Singh, whose name appears at
Sl No. 4 Ex WW-1/5, was similarly placed and was appointed as a driver
similar to the concerned workman. He further admitted that the said
Dhyan Singh has been regularized as a driver and is still working with the
management as a regular and permanent driver. He admitted the salary
slip of Dhyan Singh as Ex. MW-1/W1.
46. The testimony of MW-1, coupled with the repeated extensions granted by
the management for about five years, clearly establishes that the workman
was continuously discharging his duties as a driver to the satisfaction of
the management. The management has not placed any material on record
to show that the nature of duties performed by the workman was different
from those performed by the regular drivers.
47. The question is whether reversion of the workman to his previous post
vide circular dated 25.02.2022 Ex. WW1/16 is legal. Although the
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 21/31
engagement of the workman as a driver was temporary and extension-
based, it was against the vacant posts and was subject to satisfactory
performance. The management is unable to establish that the services of
the workman as a driver were unsatisfactory and not against the vacant
post.
48. Regarding the vacant post, MW-1 also admitted that several driver posts
have remained vacant since February 2016. Ld. AR for the workman has
also relied upon the decision passed in the connected case bearing No.
‘POIT NO. 34/2023 Ikhtiyar Vs. MCD,’ wherein the witness filed the
recruitment rules and the vacancy position for the post of driver, as per
which, 381 out of 833 sanctioned driver posts have remained vacant from
2016 to date.
49. The very fact that 381 posts of driver are still lying vacant with the
MCD, the engagement of the workman as a driver was not casual. Further,
the extension given on five occasions clearly demonstrates the permanent
and continuous nature of the work performed by the workman. The
management’s plea that the engagement was purely temporary appears
illusory and a mere camouflage. The repeated extensions granted to the
workman and the continuous utilization of his services as a driver further
establish that he was, in fact, working against the department’s regular
requirements.
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 22/31
50. The management has also failed to place on record any evidence to show
that the duties performed by the workman were in any manner different
from those performed by the regular driver. It is thus amply clear that the
workman was performing identical duties, responsibilities and functions
of regular drivers.
51. The management has mainly relied on the judgment in the case titled
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein it was
held that contractual employees in public departments cannot seek
regularisation and confirmation of service on the ground of the length of
their service, and that such regularisation would amount to creating an
impermissible mode of public appointment bypassing constitutional
requirements.
52. In Sheo Narain Nagar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh(2018) 13 SCC 432 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Uma Devi (Supra) has not been
properly understood and has been wrongly applied by various State
Governments. It was further noted that although incumbents should be
appointed regularly in accordance with the rules, a new method of making
appointments on a contract basis has been adopted, employment is often
offered on a daily wage basis, and other exploitative practices are in use.
It was further observed that the main purpose of Uma Devi (Supra) was
to ensure that employment is obtained through fair means and not via
back-door entry, within the prescribed pay scale and the said spirit of
Uma Devi (Supra) has been ignored and conveniently overlooked by
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 23/31
various State Governments and authorities, who are using it merely as a
tool to prevent the regularisation of incumbents’ services.
53. Further, in Dharam Singh v. State of UP 2025 SCC Online SC 1735, the
Hon’ble Apex Court clearly distinguished Uma Devi (Supra) by observing
that refusal to sanction posts for the work of a perennial nature is different
from bypassing the constitutional scheme of public appointment. It was held
that where the nature of work is perennial, and the State itself
acknowledges the need for a regular workforce, an arbitrary refusal to
sanction posts cannot be sustained. The relevant paragraphs are
reproduced hereinunder as:-
“9. Moreover, it is undisputed that the nature of work performed
by the appellants, i.e. sorting and scrutiny of applications,
dispatch and office support, and driving, has been continuous
and integral to the Commission’s functioning since their
engagement between 1989 and 1992. The Commission itself
moved for sanction of fourteen posts and furnished a list of
fourteen daily wagers including the appellants. That consistent
internal demand, coupled with uninterrupted utilization of the
appellants’ labour on regular office hours, fortifies the
conclusion that the duties are perennial. To continue extracting
such work for decades while pleading want of sanctioned
strength is a position that cannot be sustained.
11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by
the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non- suit the appellants
is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us
is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public
employment. It is a challenge to the State’s arbitrary refusals to
sanction posts despite the employer’s own acknowledgement of
need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce.
On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between
illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not
endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where thePOIT- 41/2023 Page No. 24/31
work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put
its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v.
Union of India and in Shripal and Anr vs Nagar Nigam, have
emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be
deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term
“ad hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of
basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended
periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force
to the present case.”
54. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.
8531/22, titled Namita Khare and others vs. University of Delhi and
others, decided on 11.07.2025 has observed in paragraph no. 36, as:-
“36. The issue at hand is no longer res integra. In Jaggo, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the decision in Umadevi (Supra) cannot be
stretched to deny regularisation to employees who have rendered
long, continuous and essential service, where the initial appointment
was not tainted by fraud or illegality. The Court emphasised that ad-
hoc or temporary status cannot be used as a tool to deny dignity and
job security to workers who discharge functions identical to regular
staff over extended periods. The judgment recognised that sustained
service in sanctioned or necessary posts, when coupled with absence
of adverse service record, attracts constitutional protection against
arbitrary termination and justifies regularisation on equitable
grounds. We find it imperative to reproduce the following portion
from Jaggo:………..”
55. The conspectus of the aforesaid judgments is that the regular recruitment for
sanctioned posts cannot be delayed to perpetuate temporary appointments
by the Government Department. In the instant case, repeated extensions
were given to the workman to discharge duties on the post of driver, which
was subject to extension on satisfactory work performance, and the very fact
that it was being extended for about five years, the reversion of the workman
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 25/31
from the post of driver to the post of Nalla Beldar without assigning any
reason, is nothing but arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.
Thus, the circular dated 25.02.2022 Ex. WW-1/16 is illegal and
unjustified.
56. Regarding payment of a fixed amount of Rs. 1200/- to the workman
instead of the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 + GP of Rs. 2400/-, which was
to be granted vide office order dated 15.02.2016 Ex. WW-1/5, suffice it to
state that when the workman was doing a similar nature of work as was
being done by the regular drivers, there is no justification to deny him
payment of the regular salary of drivers.
57. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhirendra Chamoli & Ors. vs. State of
U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637, has also held that as long as workers are performing
the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service
as Class IV employees.
58. This Tribunal is also guided by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
passed in State of Punjab and Ors vs Jagjit Singh and Ors, AIR 2016
Supreme Court 5176, wherein it was held that persons discharging
identical duties cannot be treated differently in terms of their pay merely
because they belong to different government departments.
59. Relying on the aforesaid decision of Jagjit Singh(supra), the Hon’ble
Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case titled Indu Munshi
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 26/31
and Ors. v. UOI and Ors., AIR Online 2018 Del 360 , held that the
“contract teachers” were appointed against regular vacancies, their
services have been continuous, and their appointments followed a
constitutionally recognized process of advertisement and calling names
from employment exchanges; each of them possessed and continues to
possess the necessary qualifications, including B.ed.; each was
interviewed before appointment. Therefore, considering their
uninterrupted employment for over two decades, these Kashmiri migrant
teachers are entitled to be regarded as regular appointees and to benefits
such as provident fund, gratuity, and pension upon reaching the age of
superannuation.
60. In Shripal & anr. versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 INSC 144 (Civil
Appeal No. 8157 of 2024 decided on 31.01.2025), the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be
casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in
roles similar to those of permanent employees and performed the same
tasks (planting, pruning, general upkeep) of regular Gardeners but still
receive inadequate and inconsistent compensation, constituting an unfair
labour practice by the Respondent Employer.
61. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, the workman was wrongly
denied the benefit of the regular driver, though he was performing a
similar nature of duties against the vacant post of driver. Further, the
management wrongly cancelled the office orders regarding the pay scale
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 27/31
of Rs. 5200-20200 + GP of Rs. 2400/- payable to class IV employees
engaged as drivers. The Management has also failed to assign any reason
for paying the workman a fixed allowance of Rs. 1200/-, though he was
discharging the duties of a regular driver who was paid a salary in the
proper pay scale.
62. Unfair labour practice, as defined u/s 2(ra), means any practice specified
in the 5th Schedule of the ID Act, including, inter alia, item no. 10, which
provides that to employ workmen as Badlis, casuals or temporaries and
to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of
the status and privilege of permanent workmen, amounts to an unfair
labour practice. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, the
management, in utter disregard of law, deprived the concerned workman
of his legitimate rights, which amounts to an unfair labour practice as
enumerated in Section 2 (ra) read with item 10 of the Fifth Schedule of
the Industrial Disputes Act by employing the workman on a temporary
basis for the permanent and perennial nature of the work of a driver, with
the object of depriving him of the status and privileges of a regular and
permanent employee. Therefore, the workman is entitled to the
regularization of his services on the post of Driver w.e.f. 23.02.2016, i.e.,
his initial date of joining, and is entitled to the salary of a driver in terms
of the office order dated 16.07.2015 Ex. WW1/3 / office order dated
15.02.2016 Ex. WW1/5 (or the corresponding revised pay scale under the
applicable pay commission) with effect from his initial date of joining as
a driver, with all consequential benefits, either monetary or otherwise.
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 28/31
63. Another concern of the workman is that his entire service as a daily wage
employee be considered for the grant of pension and other retirement cum
death benefits under the old pension scheme. Ld. AR for the workman
has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in W.P.(C) 2060/2019, Dr Ravindra Narayan Mishra Vs Sri Guru Tegh
Bahadur Khalsa College and ors, dated 19.05.2023 , wherein it has been
observed as follows:
“36. From a conspectus of the aforementioned judgments, it is
palpably clear that Courts have repeatedly affirmed that if an
employee enters service prior to 01.01.2004 i.e. the date of
enforcement of NPS, inwhatever capacity, whether as temporary or
ad-hoc employee and renders continuous and uninterrupted
service, followed by regularisation/absorption, the period
of service shall count towards qualifying service for pension and
such an employee will be deemed to be in service prior to
01.01.2004 and thus governed by OPS……..”
64. It is amply clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgment that the
entire services of the workman from the date of initial appointment on
a temporary basis till the date of regularisation shall be
counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, and he will be
deemed to be in service prior to 01.01.2004 and governed by OPS.
65. In view of the aforesaid discussion, issue no. 3 and 4 are decided in
favour of the Workman and against the management.
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 29/31
Relief:
66. In view of the foregoing findings on issues, the workman is held
entitled to the following reliefs:-
1. The action of the management in reverting the
workman to his earlier post vide circular dated
25.02.2022 is hereby set aside, and the workman shall
be deemed to be continuing as a Driver;
2. The workman shall be regularised on the post of
Driver with effect from 23.02.2016, the date from
which he was initially deployed as Driver;
3. The workman shall be entitled to pay scale of Rs.
5200- 20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- (or the
corresponding revised pay scale under applicable pay
commission) along with all consequential benefits
with effect from 23.02.2016 onwards; and
4. The entire services of the workman from the date
of initial appointment on a temporary basis till the
date of regularisation shall be counted as qualifying
service for the purpose of pension, and he will be
deemed to be in service prior to 01.01.2004 and
governed by OPS.
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 30/31
67. The management is directed to implement this award within 60 days
of its publication, failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the
rate of 8% per annum from the date of the terms of reference till its
realization. The award is passed accordingly. A copy of the award be
sent to the appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned
to the Records after due compliance.
Announced in open Tribunal on Digitally
signed by
MANJUSHA
MANJUSHA WADHWA
WADHWA Date:
2026.04.07
on 06.04.2026.
12:39:07
+0530
(MANJUSHA WADHWA)
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-1
Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi.
POIT- 41/2023 Page No. 31/31