INTHECOURTOFMSSHAILJAIN,PRESIDINGOFFICER,INUDSTRIAL TRIBUNAL02,DWARKACOURTS,NEWDELHI IDNo.956/16 [ENTITY] sonofSh.CharanSingh representedbyMunicipalEmployeesUnion AggarwalBhawanGTRoad,TisHazari Delhi54.
Vs M/sManagementofMunicipalCorporationofDelhi, ThroughitsCommissioner,TownHall, ChandaniChowk,Delhi.
DateofInstitution:04.06.2010 DateofOrder:12/07/2018 AWARD
1) Workman has raised the present dispute and on failure of conciliation proceedings, GNCT of Delhi referred the dispute to this 1 Out of 22 Tribunalforadjudicationinthefollowingtermofreference "WhetherdemandofShAshoksonofShCharan SinghforregularizationasLDCisjustified,andif so,towhatrelief,isheentitled?"
2) Statement of claim was filed on behalf of the workman. In the statement of claim, workman has stated that he had joined the managementinFebruary,1975aschowkidar.Initiallyhewastreatedas amonthlypaid/musterrollworkerandwaspaidthewagesasfixedand revised from time to time under the [ACT], while his counterpartswhoweredoingtheidenticalwork,but,whoweretreated asregularemployeeweregettingtheirsalaryinproperpayscalesand allowances.Itistheclaimoftheworkmanthathehadbeentransferred inCSEdepartmentintheyear198081andwasassignedthejob/duties ofbillclerk.Ultimatelytheservicesoftheworkmanwereregularized videorderdt2.7.82withretrospectiveeffectfrom1/3/81butonlyasa safai karamchari. The workman objected for the same but he was assuredthatinnearfuture,hewillberegularizedasLDC.Ultimatelyin the year 1988, an examination of LDC was conducted and subsequentlyworkmanwaspromotedasLDCw.e.f.4/11/88.Thereafter workman was further promoted as UDC w.e.f. 20/05/97 after an examination in the year 1996. In fact workman has continuously discharged his duty as LDC since February 1975 and as such his servicesshouldhavebeenregularizedasLDCsincetheinitialdateof hisjoiningandheshouldhavealsobeenpaidtheentiredifferenceof
2 Out of 22 salary of safai karamchari and that of an LDC for the period from February 1975 till 3/11/88 along with seniority. It is the claim of the workman that the action of the management regarding non regularization ofservicesofworkmanonthepostofLDCsinceinitial dateandnonpaymentofarrearsonthepostofLDCsinceinitialdate and non payment of arrears of difference in the salary of safai karamchari and that of LDC for the period from February 1975 to 3/11/88andseniorityisillegalandunjustified.
3) Management/MCD has filed the written statement wherein they havetakenthepreliminaryobjectionthatthepresentdisputeisnotan IndustrialDispute,asthesamehasnotbeenespousedbytheunion. Nodemandnoticehasbeenserveduponthemanagement.Ithasbeen stated by the management that management has policy of regularizationiephasemannerandavailabilityofpostonlyfortheclass IVdailywageemployeeandthereisnopolicyofregularizationforthe postofLDC.Intheabsenceofanyregularizationpolicyforthepostof LDC,thepresentclaimisbadinlawandisliabletobedismissed.Ithas also been submitted by the management in the WS that as per the notifiedRecruitmentRulestothepostofLDC,therecruitmenttothe postofLDCiseithermadebywayofdirectrecruitmentthroughDSSSB or by way of promotion after passing of departmental exams from amongst classIV, regular employees having five years of regular services.AspertheRecruitmentRules,thewrittenexaminationplus typingtestatthespeedof30wordsperminuteinEnglishor25words perminuteinHindiisrequiredfortheappointment/promotiontothepost ofLDC.TheclaimantwaspromotedtothepostofLDCvideorderdt 3 Out of 22 4/11/88 way back in the year 1988 after passing of the LDC departmentalexamination.Andthereafterhewaspromotedtothepost of Head Clerk vide order dt 28/12/2007and 07/05/2008. Hence the claimoftheclaimantforregularizationonthepostofLDCatthepresent juncture is absolutely baseless. The statement of claim is not maintainableonthegroundoflatchesandinordinatedelay.Withthese submission,ithasbeenprayedbythe managementthatclaimofthe claimantbedismissed.
4) On 09/04/2012, following issues were framed by my Ld Predecessor:
1)Whetherthepresentdisputeisanindustrialdisputeasdefined insection2(K)ofIndustrialDisputeAct?OPW
2)Whetherthestatementofclaimisnotmaintainableonground oflatches/inordinatedelay?OPM
3)Whethertheclaimoftheworkmanhasbeenproperlyespoused bytheunion?OPW
4)Whetheranynoticeofdemandwasserveduponmanagement,if not,itseffect?OPW
5)Aspertermsofreference.
5) Insupportofhiscase, workmanhasappearedasWW1andhas tendered his affidavit in evidenceasExWW1/[ENTITY] also reliedupondocumentsEx.WW1/1toExWW1/24.WW2ShSurender BhardwajhastenderedhisaffidavitinevidenceasExWW2/Aandhas relieduponthedocumentEx.WW1/23.
6) Fromthesideofthemanagement,ShHemantKumarhasbeen
4 Out of 22 examinedasMW1.MW1hastenderedhisaffidavitinevidenceasEx MW1/A and has relied upon the documents from Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/4.
7) ArgumentswereheardfromLdA.Rfortheworkman.LdARfor MCD, Management has not advanced any argument but had filed writtensubmissions.Insupportoftheirarguments,LdARfortheparties haverelieduponvariousjudgments.Insupportofhisarguments,LdAR fortheworkmanhasrelieduponthefollowingjudgments:
1) 1999 LLR 1020 Municipal Employees Union vs The Secretary (Labour)andanother
2) MANU/SC/0254/1999[ENTITY] vs The Sirhind CoOperative MarketingcumProcessingServicesSocietyLtdandanother.
3)Manu/SC/0103/2005JHJadhavvsForbesGokakLtd
4) [PRECEDENT].
5)SelvarajvsLtGovernorofIsland,PortBlairandothersAppeal No.15681569of1998dateofdecision16/03/98.
6) [CASE NUMBER] IndiavsSherSingh
7) WP(C)1879/2008dateofdecision4/5/11UnionofIndiavs SurenderKumar.
8)MANU/DE/2402/2014MCDVsHariKishan
[PRECEDENT]
5 Out of 22
8) In support of his arguments, Ld AR for the management has relieduponthefollowingauthorities:
1)(2004)7SCC112(UmaRaniVsRegistrarCooperativeSociety
2)2006ILLJ721StateofUPvsNeerajAwasthi
3)2000(2)ADDelhiMCDVsPOIT2
9) I haveconsidered theargumentsadvancedbyLdA.Rforthe workman,writtensubmissionsfiledbythemanagement,evidenceled by the parties, the material available on record and the relevant provisionsoflaw.Ihavealsogonethroughthejudgmentsreliedupon byLdARfortheparties. Afterconsideringthesame,myissuewise findingsareasfollows: Issueno.1and3: ISSUENO:1:Whetherthepresentdisputeisanindustrialdispute asdefinedinsection2(K)ofIndustrialDisputeAct?OPW ISSUENO.3Whethertheclaimoftheworkmanhasbeenproperly espousedbytheunion?OPW
10) Iwilldiscussissueno.1and3simultaneously,astheseissues areinterrelated.
11) PresentdisputehasbeenraisedbytheworkmanAshokkumar for claiming that when he was appointed in MCD on daily wages, though he wasappointedasSafaikaramchaributhewasgiventhe responsibilitiesofLDC, therefore, hehassoughtthereliefofbeing regularized as LDC from the date of his initial joining. From the reference,itisclearthatitisanindividualdisputeofworkman,which hasbeenreferredtothisTribunal.Managementhastakentheobjection
6 Out of 22 thatsincethisisadisputeofindividualworkman,thisisnotcovered withinthedefinitionofindustrialdisputeasdefinedinsection2(K)of IndustrialDisputeAct,1947(hereinaftercalledasIDAct).
12) [ACT]wheneveranydisputeisraisedby theworkmanagainsttheemployeri.emanagement,effortsaremade forreconciliationofthedisputebetweentheworkmanandmanagement and in case reconciliation efforts fails, reference is made by the government under [SECTION] of [ACT] to the Industrial Tribunal or LabourCourtsforadjudicationofthedispute.
13) For better understanding of definition of industrial dispute as defined u/[SECTION] of [ACT], same is reproduced as under:
[SECTION]
"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 nonemployment or the termsofemploymentorwiththecondition oflabour,ofanyperson"
14) Frombarereadingofdefinitionofindustrialdisputeasprovidedin [SECTION],itisclearthatanydisputewhichisinrelationtothe employmentandnonemploymentortermsofemploymentorwiththe conditionoflabour of anyperson, asraisedbetweenworkmenand workmen,betweenemployeroremployerorbetweentheemployer 7 Out of 22 andworkmenwillbeconsideredasanindustrialdispute.Byvarious judgmentsofHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia,itwasheldasearlyasin 1961thatdisputewhichiscoveredu/[SECTION]hastobethe disputeofworkmenandincaseanyindividualdisputeisreferredtothe Tribunal, same is to be espoused or sponsored by the union. In BombayUnionofJournalistsandothersvsTheHindu, Bombay andanother1963AIR318,Hon'bleSupremeCourthasheldthat:
"ThattheapplicabilityoftheIndustrialDisputesActtoan individualdisputeasdistinguishedfromadisputeinvolving agroupofworkmenisexcluded,unlesstheworkmenasa body or a considerable section of them make common causewiththeindividualworkman".
InthecaseofBombayUnionofJournalistsandothersvsThe [ENTITY] (mentionedabove),Hon'bleSupreme Court has considered the case of [PRECEDENT] 754whereinitwasheldthat:
"In [PRECEDENT], this court after setting out three possible views on the questions whether a dispute by an individual workman may be regarded as an industrial disputewithinthemeaningofsection2(K)of theIndustrialDisputeAct,1947observed,"the
8 Out of 22 preponderanceofjudicialopinionisclearlyin favour of the last of the three views stated above(ie.Adisputebetweenanemployerand a single employee cannot perse be an industrialdispute,butitmaybecomeoneifitis takenupbytheunionoranumberofworkmen and there is considerable reason behind it.
Notwithstandingthatthelanguageofsection2
(k)iswideenoughtocoveradisputebetween an employer and single employee, the scheme of [ACT] does appear to contemplate that the machinery provided thereinshouldbesetinmotion,tosettleonly disputewhichinvolvedtherightsofworkmen as a class and that a dispute touching the individual right, of a workman was not intended to be the subject of an adjudication under the Act, when the same had not been taken".
Inthatcase,[PRECEDENT]
9 Out of 22 "Membersoftheunionwhowerenotworkmenof the employer against whom the dispute was sought to be raised could not by their support convertanindividualdisputeintoanindustrial dispute. Persons who sought to support the causeofaworkmanmustthemselvesbedirectly andsubstantiallyinterestedinthedisputeand persons who were not employees of the same employer could not be regarded as so interested."
15) Therefore it was established by various judgments of Hon'ble SupremeCourtthatanindustrialdisputecannotbeconsideredasan industrialdisputeu/[SECTION],unlessthesameissponsoredor espousedbytheunionorbygroupofworkmen,whoareinterestedin the dispute. Thereafter, same opinion was expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT],Hon'bleSupremeCourthadheldthat:
"The decisions of this court have consistently taken the view that in order that a dispute between a single employee and his employer shouldbe validlyreferredundersection10of the Act, itisnecessary thatitshould have been taken up by the Union to which the
10 Out of 22 employeebelongsorbyanumberofemployees. 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 the workmenorbyanumberofworkmen."
16) Afterconsideringtherelevantprovisionoflaw,assettled,nowI willexaminetheapplicabilityoflawtothefactsinhand.
17) Inthepresentcase, admittedly, thedisputeofsingleworkman hasbeenreferredtothisTribunal.Theclaimoftheworkmanisthathis causehasbeensupportedbytheunion,astheclaimissignedbythe GeneralSecretaryoftheMunicipalEmployeeUnion.Asperlaw, the espousalletterinfavouroftheworkmanorsigningthestatementof claimfiledbytheworkmenwillnotprovethefactthatunion,assuch has espoused or supported the cause of workman. As discussed earlier, it has been established by various judgments of Hon'ble SupremeCourtthatcauseofindividualworkmanunlessespousedor supported by the union of workmen or group of workmen will not becomeanindustrialdisputeaspersection2(K)ofIDAct.Whetherthe unionhadsupportedthecauseofworkmenisaquestionoffact,which dependsonthefactsofeachcase.Itisthedutyoftheworkmanto provetheespousaloftheuniontohiscause.
18) Inthepresentcase,workmanwhohasbeenexaminedasWW1 hasreliedupon23documentsiefromEx.WW1/1toEx.WW1/23.Out ofthesedocuments, Ex.WW1/23isstatedtobethe espousalletter 11 Out of 22 giveninfavouroftheworkmanbytheunion.[ENTITY] twowitnesses.WW1istheworkmanhimselfandWW2isShSurender Bhardwaj,whowastheGeneralSecretaryoftheunion.
19) From the perusal of the document Ex.WW1/23, it is clear that samehasnotbeensignedbyWW1.EvenWW2ShSurenderBhardwaj whohasappearedonbehalfoftheunionhasnotidentifiedsignatureon the document Ex.WW1/23. He has categorically stated in his cross examinationthatdocumentEx.WW1/23doesnotbearhissignature.He hasalsoadmittedthathehasnotplacedonrecordtheAgendaofthe meetingandMinutesoftheMeetinginrespecttotheespousalofthe causeoftheworkman.Witnesshasalsostatedthathehadbecomethe General Secretary of the union in the year 2010, Whereas the documentEx.WW1/23isdt5/12/2006,therefore,atthetime,whenthe documentEx.WW1/23wasgiven,[ENTITY] theGeneralSecretaryoftheunion.[ENTITY] was the General Secretary in the year 2006, when the document Ex.WW1/23wasgiven.
20) InthewrittensubmissionssubmittedbyLdARfortheworkman, hehasstatedthatespousalletterhasbeengivenontheletterheadof theunion,whichshowsthatcauseofworkmanhasbeensponsoredby theunion.PerusalofthedocumentEx.WW1/23clearlyshowsthatthis isnotgivenontheletterheadoftheunion.Thisdocument,firstly is photocopy; nooriginalofthis documenthasbeenproducedinthe court; signatory to this document has not been examined by the workman,eventhenameoftheperson,whohadsignedthedocument, hasnotbeenmentionedeitherbyworkmanwhohasappearedasWW1 12 Out of 22 norbyGeneralSecretaryoftheunionShSurenderBhardwaj,whohas appearedasWW2inthepresentcase.Consideringthesame,Iamof the opinion that workman has failed to prove that his cause was espoused or supported by the union or by the group of workmen. Thereforeissueno.3isdecidedagainsttheworkmantotheeffectthat causeoftheworkmanhasnotbeenproperlyespousedbytheunion.
21) Sincedisputeraisedbytheworkmanhasnotbeenespousedby theunion, asisprovedagainsthiminissueno.3,therefore,present disputeasraisedbytheworkmandoesnotfallwithinthedefinitionof industrialdisputeasdefinedu/[SECTION].Therefore,issueno.1is alsodecidedagainsttheworkman.
22) Ld AR for the workman has relied upon the judgment of [PRECEDENT] was dealing with the issue of espousal by union and while consideringtheespousal,Hon'bleSupremeCourthasconsideredthe caseof WorkmenofM/sDharampalPremChand(Saugandhi)vs M/sDharampalPremChand(Saugandhi)(1965)3SCR394 .The caseofJHJadhavvsForbesGokakLtd(mentionedabove)thusdoes notprovideanyhelptotheworkmanasinthecaseofJHJadhavvs ForbesGokakLtd,Hon'bleSupremeCourthasclearlyheldthat:
"Asfarasespousalisconcerned,thereisnoparticular formprescribedtoeffectsuchespousal.Doubtless,the union must normally express itself in the form of a resolution which should be proved if it is in issue.
13 Out of 22 However, proof of support by the union may also be available aliunde. It would depend upon the facts of eachcase".
23) Therefore,itisclearthatHon'bleSupremeCourtinJHJadhav vsForbesGokakLtd case(mentionedabove) hasheldthatunion mustexpressitselfinrespecttotheespousalintheformofresolution whichistobeproved.Inthepresentcase,neitheranyresolutionofthe unionhasbeenplacedonrecordnorthedocumentEx.WW1/23stated tobeespousalletterhasbeenprovedinaccordancewithlaw.Hence, bothIssueno.1andIssueno.3aredecidedagainsttheworkman. ISSUENo.2: Whether thestatementofclaimisnotmaintainable ongroundoflatches/inordinatedelay?OPM
24) Factsleading to thepresentcase,are,that, intheyear 1975 workman had joined the employment of the management, as Chowkidar/[ENTITY]. He was initially a daily wager. The servicesoftheworkmanwereregularizedvideofficeorderdt02/07/82 w.e.f.1/3/81asSafaiKaramchari.Itisthecaseoftheworkmanthat althoughhewasregularizedasSafaiKaramchariin1981,afterbeing appointedasChowkidari/SafaiKaramchariintheyear1975,buthewas working as LDC since 1975, and therefore he has claimed that his servicesshouldhavebeenregularizedasLDC.Althoughworkmanhad claimedthathewasworkingasLDC,sinceinitialdateofhisjoiningbut noproperdocument/officeorderplacingtheworkmanasLDCorgiving himthedutiesofLDC, hasbeenplacedonrecordbyworkman.Itis also surprising to note that admittedly workman has undertaken the 14 Out of 22 departmentalexaminationofLDCconductedintheyear1988&after being successful in that exam, he was appointed as LDC w.e.f. 04/11/88.ThereafteragaintheworkmanwaspromotedasUDCw.e.f. 20/05/1997afterbeingsuccessfulinexaminationheldintheyear1996. Further,workmanwaspromotedasHeadClerkintheyear2007.Itis importanttoconsiderthatinthepresentcasereferencehasbeenmade on02/06/2010inthefollowingterms:
"WhetherdemandofShAshoksonofShCharan SinghforregularizationasLDCisjustified,ifsoto whatrelief,isheentitled?"
25) ThewordingofthereferenceasmadebytheGovernmentshows thattheworkman isseekingregularization"asLDC"butitdoesnot specifically mention from which date, the workman is seeking his regularizationonthepostofLDC.
26) Managementhastakentheobjectionthatdisputeraisedbythe workmanhasbeenraisedatverydelayedstage,henceitissuffering fromlatchesandinordinatedelayandreferenceshouldnothavebeen made by the Government. Admittedly, workmanwasregularizedas SafaiKaramchariintheyear1982,althoughhehasclaimedthathe wasworkingasLDCatthattimealso.Therefore,thecauseofworkman for seeking regularization on the post of LDC, as per claim of workman, had arisen in the year 1982 itself. But workman had preferredpresentdisputeintheyear2010iepresentdisputehasbeen referredtothisTribunalafteragapof28years.Thisdisputehasbeen raised by the workman after he himself had undertaken the examinationforbecomingLDCandUDCandhasbeensuccessfulin 15 Out of 22 being appointed as LDC and UDC in the year 1988 and 1997 respectively.Eventhen,nodisputewasraisedbythe workmanand finallyintheyear2007workmanhadbeenpromotedasHeadClerkbut dispute has been raised by the workman in the year 2010 and no explanationhasbeentenderedbytheworkmanforsuchdelay.
27) Ld AR for the workmanhasreliedupon twojudgmentson the point of delay i. e (1) [ENTITY] vs The Sirhind CoOperative MarketingCumProcessingServiceSocietyLtdandAnotherCA No2157of1999dateofdecisionis8/4/99and(2)JasmerSinghvs State of HaryanaCivil [CASE NUMBER] date of decision 13/01/2015andhassubmittedthatsinceLimitationActdoesnotapply to the [ACT], therefore, no limitation has been prescribedinraisingtheindustrialdispute.
28) In [PRECEDENT] before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter came up regarding delay in filing the dispute,itwasdiscussedindetailbyHon'bleSupremeCourtthatsince no limitation has been provided in raising the industrial dispute, therefore [SECTION] of the [ACT] cannot be held to be applicableundertheAct.Afterdiscussingvariousother judgmentsof Hon'bleSupremeCourtand Hon'bleHighCourts, Hon'bleSupreme CourtinAjaibSingh'scasehasfinallyobservedthatsincetheissueof delaywasnotinvolvedinthepresentmatterasthemanagementhas notshowntohavetakenanyplearegardingdelay,nofinalopinionwas expressed in that regard. Therefore judgment of Hon'ble Supreme 16 Out of 22 Court in [ENTITY]'s case (mentioned above) can be differentiated fromfactsinhand.Inthepresentcase,managementhadclearlytaken objectionthatreferencehadbeenmadeatdelayedstage.
29) Similarly judgment relied upon by Ld AR for the workman in JasmerSinghvsStateofHaryana(mentionedabove)isalsonotof much help to the workman. Firstly it is important to note that both [PRECEDENT] case and other, matters which have been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] case were relating to the termination of the workman and not having the facts similar to the presentfactsinhand.Comingtothecaseof [PRECEDENT] 31/12/93 and he made demand notice on 27/11/96, thereafter reference was made to Industrial Tribunal by the Government. The IndustrialTribunalwhiledecidingthereferencerelyinguponthecaseof Hon'bleSupremeCourtinAjaibSinghcaseheldthatlimitationperiodis notapplicabletotheproceedingsoftheAct. Therelevantparagraph fromAjaibSinghcase(supra)areextractedhereinbelow:
"Itfollows,therefore,thattheprovisionsof [ACT] are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannotbedeniedtotheworkmanmerelyon the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be
17 Out of 22 proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labourcourtcanbegenerallyquestionedon the ground of delay alone. Even in a case wherethedelayisshowntobeexisting,the tribunal,labourcourtorboard,dealingwith the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workmantillthedateheraisedthedemand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissed. The court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages insteadoffullwages."
30) After considering the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme CourtinAjaibSinghandJasmerSinghcase(mentionedabove),Iam oftheopinionthatfactsofthepresentcaseinhandareentirelydifferent fromthefactsbeforeHon'bleSupremeCourt andthussamecanbe differentiated. In both cases ie [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] case (mentioned above), dispute has been raised after the workman was terminatedandafteragapofabout7yearsinAjaibSinghcaseand threeyearsinJasmerSinghcase,referencewasmadetotheIndustrial Tribunal. Whereas in the present case, workman is continuously 18 Out of 22 workingwiththemanagement, secondly theworkmanisseekingthe reliefofregularizationonthepostofLDC,althoughhehasbeenduly regularizedbythemanagementonthepostofSafaiKaramchariinthe year1982; thirdly presentdisputehasbeenreferredtotheIndustrial TribunalbytheGovernmentintheyear2010ieafteraboutdelayof28 yearsfromthefirstregularizationoftheworkmanintheyear1982.In AjaibSinghcase,Hon'bleSupremeCourthasheldthatifthepleaof delayisraisedbytheemployer,thenitisrequiredfortheemployerto provetherealprejudicecausedtothemanagement/employer.Inthe present case, once the workman has been regularized as [ENTITY] because he was appointed as daily wager i.e. as ChowkidarcumsafaiKaramchariandfinallyintheyear1988hehimself had been successful candidate for the post of LDC and was duly appointedasLDCbytheemployer,thanafteragapof2728years workmancannotbeallowedtoraisethedisputethatheshouldhave beenregularizedonthepostofLDCintheyear1982fromthedateof hisinitialjoining.Noreasonableexplanationhasbeenfurnishedbythe workmanastowhyhehadnotraisedthedisputeeitherintheyear 1982whenhewasregularizedasSafaiKaramchariorintheyear1988 whenhehimselfhadbecomesuccessfulcandidateinthedepartmental examinationofLDC.
31) MyviewalsogetssupportfromthejudgmentofRameshKumar vsDelhiJalBoard2012LLR713 passedbyHon'bleHighCourtof Delhi.Inthiscase,Hon'bleDelhiHighCourthasheldthatunexplained delayof6yearsinraisingtheindustrialdisputebytheworkmanmay disentitle him from any relief by the Industrial Tribunal. Further in [PRECEDENT], Hon'ble High Court referred to certain decisionsofHon'bleSupremeCourtwhereinitwasobservedthatwhen thepowerisconferredbyStatutewithoutmentioningtheperiodwithin it, it couldbeinvoked, samehastobedonewithinthereasonable period,asallthepowersmustbeexercisedreasonablyandexerciseof thesamemustbewithinthereasonableperiod.Itwaspointedoutthat appellant did not give anyexplanationfortheinordinatedelayof11 yearsinraisingthedispute,hencepetitionwasdismissed.
32) Inthepresentcaseinhand,thedelayisformorethan28years withoutanyexplanationonthepartoftheworkman,therefore,Iamof theopinionthat thisissueistobedecidedagainsttheworkman&in favourofmanagement thatclaimoftheworkmanisnotmaintainable onthegroundoflatches/inordinatedelay.
ISSUE NO. 4: Whetheranynoticeofdemandwasservedupon management,ifnot,itseffect?OPW
33) Aspertheevidenceofworkman,noticeEx.WW1/1wassentby theworkmantothemanagement.Fromtheperusalofthedocument Ex.WW1/1,itisclearthatsameissignedbysomeGeneralSecretary, withoutmentioningthenameofthepersonholdingthepostofGeneral Secretaryandalsowithoutmentioningtheassociationorunionofwhich theletterhasbeensigned.AdmittedlyWW1hasnotsignedthelegal demandnotice.EvenWW2ShSurenderBhardwajhassubmittedthat sameisnotsignedbyhim.Ithasnotbeenprovedonrecordbythe workman, as to who was the person who has signed the letter Ex.WW1/1,thereforeitcannotbeconsideredthatvaliddemandnotice 20 Out of 22 hasbeensentbytheworkmantothemanagement,hencethisissue no.4isalsodecidedagainsttheworkman.
Issueno5:ASPERTHETERMSOFREFERENCE
34) Inthepresentcase,thereliefsoughtbytheworkmanasperthe referenceisavaguerelief,becausereferenceistotheeffect,"whether thedemandofAshokKumarforregularizationasLDCisjustifiedandif sotowhatreliefis heentitled". Sincetheworkman,atthetimeof makingthereferencetotheIndustrialTribunalwasalreadyworkingas HeadClerk,afterbeingsuccessfullyappointedasLDCinyear1988 andasUDCinyear1997,therefore, referenceinitself isnotproper reference.Itdoesnotshowfromwhichdate,workmanisclaimingtobe regularizedas"LDC".
35) Admittedly workman was appointed on daily wage basis as Chowkidar/SafaiKaramchariinyear1975&wasregularizedas[ENTITY] in 1982 w.e.f 1981. Management had specifically mentioned and proved by evidence that "regularization policy" is applicableonlyforclassIVemployees& notforpostofLDC. Itis clearlystatedbyMCDintheirWSthatatthe postofLDC,eitherthe workercouldbeappointedbywayofdirectrecruitmentthroughDSSSB orbyinternaldepartmentalexamination.Itisalso,thecaseofworkman herein,thathehadappearedindepartmentalexaminationofLDC in 1988,andafterbeingsuccessful,wasappointedasLDCin1988,and wasalsogivenfurtherpromotions.Thus,itisclearthatworkmanwas himselfawareoftheprocedureforappointmentonthepostofLDC& beingcompetentwasappointedasLDCin1988.Therefore,itcannot benowclaimedbytheworkmanthatheshouldberegularizedasLDC 21 Out of 22 from his initial appointment in 1975 or from 1981, when he was regularized as safaikaramchari. Further, by the documents relied & placedonrecordbyworkman,itisnotprovedthatbyanyofficialorder, anyworkofLDCwaseverentrustedtoworkman.
36) Evenotherwise,aspermyabovediscussion,issueno.1and3 have been decided against the workman to the effect that dispute raisedbytheworkmanisnotanindustrialdisputeaspersection2(K) ofIDAct,asthesamehasnotbeenproperlyespousedbytheunion, therefore,presentreferencemadetotheTribunalcannotbedecidedby thisTribunal.Issueno.2hasalsobeendecidedagainsttheworkman totheeffectthatpresentstatementofclaimisnotmaintainableonthe groundoflatches/inordinatedelayandissueno.4hasbeendecided againsttheworkmanthatnonoticeofdemandhasbeenservedbythe workmanonthemanagement.
37) Inviewofthis, thereferenceisthusansweredinnegative.Awardis passedaccordingly.
38) CopyofthisawardbesenttoGNCTofDelhiforpublication.
39) Filebeconsignedtorecordroom. AnnouncedintheopenCourton(SHAILJAIN)
this12thJuly,2018.PresidingOfficer,POIT02 DwarkaCourt,NewDelhi.
SHAIL by [ENTITY] Date: JAIN 2018.07.16 13:40:55 +0530 22 Out of 22