Kuldeep & Others vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Others

R.N. Singh, Member (J)

The present OA has been filed by the applicants allegedly on being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in replacing them with another set of

contractual employees to be recruited through an outside agency. They have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“ (i) To declare the action of the respondents in terminating the services of applicants in order to appoint another set of contractual staff through

outside agency i.e. ICSIL in place of applicants as illegal and unjustified and direct the respondents to continue the applicants as Security Guard in the

same capacity in which they have been appointed till their regularization as per the regularization scheme to be formulated by Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

(ii) To declare the action of respondents in resorting to Contract Labour System for discharging the perennial nature of work attached to the post of

Security Guard as illegal and violative of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 as illegal, arbitrary and direct the respondents to

continue the applicants as Security Guards in the same capacity and given them same pay and allowances as paid to the regular Security Guards on

the principle of equal pay for equal work with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.

(iii) To quash and set aside Annexure A-1 and direct the respondents not to change the terms & conditions of appointment of applicants by forcing

them to get registered with ICSIL for continuation of service as Security Guards through ICSIL on contract basis.

(iv) To pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) To allow the OA with cost.â€​

Pursuant to the notice from this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their counter reply and have denied the claim of the applicants. Mr. Amit

Anand, learned counsel for respondents submits that the applicants in the present OA are no longer working under the respondents in any capacity.

Rejoinder has also been filed by the applicants. It is submitted by the learned counsels for the parties that the issue raised in the present OA is

identical to that in OA Nos.2866/2017, 694/2019, 939/2018, 1759/2019, 2335/2018, 2789/2017, 2808/2017, 3284/2018, 3298/2018, 3396/2018, 3461/2018,

3508/2019, 3792/2017, 3855/2018, 4134/2017, 4317/2017 & 4408/2018. The same were dismissed by a common order/judgment dated 10.01.2020

(Annexure M-3). The applicants, therein, approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petitions and the said Writ Petitions being

No. W.P.(C) 842/2020 etc. have been disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order/judgment dated 06.02.2020, which reads as

under:-

“15. Upon perusal of Cabinet Decision dated 22.03.2016 referred to above it is evident that the Cabinet was concerned about the delay in the

payment of wages to workers engaged by government departments and organizations, either directly or outsourced through private firms/ agencies. It

was in this context that the Cabinet decided to put in place certain measures to ensure that all contractual employees, whether employed directly by

the Government or through a contractor whose services have been hired by the Government, are paid wages regularly and punctually. There is

therefore nothing in the Cabinet Decision dated 22.03.2016 to warrant the conclusion that the Cabinet had decided that all contractual employees

would be hired directly by the Government and there would be no outsourcing of contractual employees through private firms/agencies/contractors.

Accordingly, there is no basis to say that after Cabinet Decision dated 22.03.2016, the petitioners must be deemed to have been engaged on

contractual basis directly by the Delhi Government.

In so far as office order dated 27.02.2017 is concerned, we are inclined to agree with the submission made by Ms. Ahlawat, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents that the office order was by way of a one-time measure, for engagement of certain persons on daily wage

basis for a certain time of period; and that office order 27.02.2017 did not give to the petitioner any right to seek engagement on the same basis.

We are also informed that in the meantime a tender had been issued by the respondents, consequent whereupon a contractor has been selected

through whom the services of sweeper-cum-chowkidars and nursing orderlies etc. would be engaged by the Delhi government; but by reason of stay

order issued by the Tribunal the contract with the selected contractor could not be finalized.

Accordingly, we find no merit in the petitioners’ contention that they must be deemed to have become contractual employees of the

respondents, which contention we hereby reject. However, we direct that the Delhi Government is bound to comply with the Cabinet Decision

No.2323 dated 22.03.2016, which we have extracted above; and to ensure that all decisions contained in the Cabinet Decision dated 22.03.2016 shall

be scrupulously and punctually enforced, in order to secure the rights of contractual employees, whether hired directly by the Government or engaged

by outsourcing through private firms/ agencies/ contractors.

Resultantly, the present writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The petitioners shall report to the respective contractors, as and when

they are appointed.â€​

Learned counsels for the parties submit that the present OA may also be disposed of in terms of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi in the common order/judgment dated 06.02.2020 under reference.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present OA is also disposed of in

terms of the order/judgment dated 06.02.2020 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi under reference.

Pending MAs also stand disposed of.