AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J):
Heard Shri Manoj Joshi for Mr. Naresh Kaushik, counsel for applicants and Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandita, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.
In OA the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“a. Allow the present Original Application;
b. Direct the respondents to grant the benefits of Office Memorandum No.19/ 117/2001-EC.X dated 09.06.2011, Letter (No.19/117/2001 (part)/EC.X) dated 30.05.2012 and Clarificatory Office Memorandum No. 8/1/2012 EC.X dated 12.07.2012 alongwith all the consequential benefits.
c. And pass such other directions and orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
The relevant facts of the case are that the applicants who are the members of Applicant No.1 Union, were initially appointed as Work-Charged Staff in various posts in the respondent-Department and they were subsequently regularized in 1989, 2000 and 2004. Thus, now they are regularized as skilled employees in various trades of the respondent-Department. There is a settlement dated 6.11.1986 entered into between the applicant’s union and the respondents under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Act, 1947. Under this settlement various service benefit available to CPWD employees are extended to the applicants. The relevant terms of the settlement are extracted below:
“TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
1.The management will implement the decision by Supreme Court in regard to demand No.1 and 6 in the charter of demands, in consultation with Law department.
2.In so far as the demand no.2 is concerned the engagement is preparing a seniority list so that the complete data is available with them. The regularisation will be done in the phased manner as per the seniority list and subject to the availability of post. The management shall try to complete seniority list at the earliest and the representative of the workmen will also provide all possible assistance in this process. A copy of the tentative seniority list will be provided to the workers representative.
3.Recording the over time allowance to the chowkidar and other worker they will be given time as per CPWD Manual/Instructions received in the deptt.
4.The uniforms will be issued as per CPWD Manual and instructions received.
5.The management has already issued instructions for issue of soap and dusters to the workmen according to the CPWD Manual (including the muster-roll employees).
6.The management has already issued instructions regarding Ad-hoc bonus to the employees (including the muster-roll employees as per the instructions received in this regard. Further discussion on the demand will be held.
7.The management is filling up available vacant posts as per recruitment rules contained in CPWD Manual Enhancement of promotion quota will be considered as and when the recruitment rules are amended.
8.The management will declare the remaining eligible workmen quasi permanent/permanent.
9.The management will pay cycle allowance as per CPWD Manual to the remaining persons. Further demand regarding providing of cycle will be discussed.........”
The applicant through their union had also filed OA No. 154/2001 for extension of benefit of the award dated 31.01.1988 which award was entered into between CPWD employees and the C.P.W.D. The same was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 10.08.2001. The said order of this Tribunal dated 10.08.2001 was challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 514/2002 (Chief Engg. Delhi Admn. Kash. G. Vs.
Delhi Flood Control Mazdoor Union). The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgment dated 14.07.2016 upheld the order passed by this Tribunal dated 10.08.2001 in favour of the applicant’s union.
Thus, the terms of the award dated 31.01.1988 were also extended to the applicants and it had attained finality by the above said order dated 14.07.2016 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 514/2002.
That the applicants Union had also filed OA No.772/2004 titled Delhi Flood Control Mazdoor Union & Others Vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi and Others before this Tribunal seeking implementation of the ACP Scheme initiated by the Union of India to the applicants, which was allowed in their favour. The applicants had filed another OA bearing no 969/2012 titled Delhi Flood Control Mazdoor Union & Others Vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi and Others for extension of some other benefit given by Union of India to its employees to be given to the applicants. The same was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 26.07.2013.
Now through this OA, the applicants are seeking the extension of the benefits to them which were given under Office Memorandum No.19/117/2001-EC.X dated 09.06.2011, Letter No.19/117/2001 (Part)/EC.X dated 30.05.2012 and Office Memorandum No. 8/1/2012 EC.X dated 12.07.2012 issued by the CPWD to its employees.
In view of the above facts and the judgments of the High Court and the orders passed by this Tribunal in various OAs filed by the applicants through their Union and which have attained finality and in view of the binding terms of the award extracted above, the respondents are bound to extend the benefits of Office Memorandum Office Memorandum No.19/117/2001-EC.X dated 09.06.2011, Letter No.19/117/2001 (Part)/EC.X dated 30.05.2012 and Office Memorandum No. 8/1/2012 EC.X dated 12.07.2012.
Counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the applicants are not entitled to the extension of the benefit under the above said OMs. He had submitted that under the OM dated 9.06.2011 the Government of India revised pay scale of Work Charged Staff working in the pay scale of Rs.260-430 to Rs.330-480 and has not revised the pay scale of Rs.260-350 and that the said OM has not been endorsed to Govt. of Delhi. He has further vehemently submitted that the applicants cannot claim parity with the employees working under the CPWD of Government of India. Counsel for respondents further submitted that the applicants cannot claim equal pay for equal work as a fundamental right and he has relied upon several judgments in support of his submissions. But, however, in view of the terms of the award referred to above and in view of the binding judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, referred to above, and in view of various orders passed by this Tribunal in several OAs referred to above, the contentions of the counsel for the respondents devoid of merit.
In the facts and circumstances, the application requires to be allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefits of Office Memorandum No.19/117/2001-EC.X dated 09.06.2011, Letter No.19/117/2001 (Part)/EC.X dated 30.05.2012 and Office Memorandum No. 8/1/2012 EC.X dated 12.07.2012 to the members of the applicant’s union with all consequential benefits. As the submissions made by the respondents is totally devoid of merit the OA is allowed with exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) on the respondents to be paid to the CAT Bar Association Library.