AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.L. Mehta, J.—This is a writ petition filed by the Municipal Employees Union against the award dated 22nd December, 1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal - I (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") whereby workman, Raghubir Singh, was denied the relief of regularization to the post of Workman from the date of his appointment, i.e., 10th June, 1984 in the post of Beldar/Mali.
On behalf of workman, Raghubir Singh, statement of claim was filed before the Tribunal claiming regularization of workman, Raghubir Singh, in the post of Beldar/Mali from the date of his initial appointment. Written statement therein was filed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent"). The said petition came to be dismissed vide impugned award dated 22nd December, 1994. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.
The impugned award has been assailed on various grounds, such as Respondent could not adopt a policy of pick and choose in granting relief of regularization to daily-wagers from the date of their appointments, and that the workman was entitled to be treated as regularly appointed after he has completed three months of continuous service and that the impugned award was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jeet Singh and Others Vs. M.C.D. and Others, .
No one has appeared for the parties. As per the notification made in the cause list, the matter is taken up for final disposal. The petition was filed in the year 1996 against the impugned award of December 1994. It is seen that the case was repeatedly adjourned either on account of non appearance of the Petitioner or that of the Respondent''s counsel. This was despite issue of various notices. The matter was also listed before the Lok Adalat where also none appeared for the Petitioner and on some dates also none appeared for this Respondent. Since from the last few dates, the case is being listed in the regular matters, but no one is appearing for the parties.
The statement of claim before the learned Tribunal was filed as "workman care of Municipal Employees" Union?. The learned Tribunal had taken note of the fact and rightly so that all the proceedings, such as issue of notice, conciliation proceedings, statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer and also before the Tribunal were taken by Rajiv Aggarwal, Secretary of Municipal Employees Union on behalf of the workman, Raghubir Singh. Not even a single document was placed on record to show the interest of workman in the proceedings before the Tribunal. From the impugned award, it appears that it was Union through its Secretary, Rajiv Aggarwal, who had taken up the cause of workman, Raghubir Singh, even without his desire and it also appears that it may not be at his instance. It was surprising to note such a state of affair that the "Industrial Dispute" was taken up by the Union alone even without there being anything on record to show any interest of the workman in the whole proceeding, so much so, the affidavit of evidence was also filed by the Secretary, Rajiv Aggarwal. There were certain facts with regard to the date of joining of workman, Raghubir Singh, as daily wager, as taken by Respondent, which remained uncontroverted by the workman. In the statement of claim, the plea of Union was about workman, Raghubir Singh, having joined as daily wager some time on 10th June, 1980, whereas as per Respondent/MCD his date of joining as per the muster roll was since July 1987. Further plea of the Respondent/MCD that a seniority list was prepared for regularization of such daily wagers and all those who had joined uptil 1979 had been included in the said list and further that the name of workman, Raghubir Singh, would be shown in the subsequent list that may be drawn later as and when there are vacancies. All these facts have also remained uncontroverted before the Tribunal.
The learned Presiding Officer while dismissing the contention of Rajiv Aggarwal, Secretary of the Union, about the workman, Raghubir Singh, having acquired the status of permanent employee with effect from 10th June, 1980, held that if the workman, Raghubir Singh, has not been regularized so far, he was entitled to be paid salary or wages equivalent to the minimum salary paid to a regular Mali/Beldar with effect from 1st January, 1995 with other allowances and benefits as mentioned in Rattan Lal and Ors. v. Lt. Governors and Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 117 and Niadar and Anr. v. Delhi Administration and Anr., (1992) 4 SCC 112 .
The learned Presiding Officer also observed that the workman, Raghubir Singh, will be absorbed as per the policy of the MCD in due course, if not already absorbed.
In the case of Jeet Singh and Ors. (supra) relied upon by the Petitioner, it was held by the Supreme as under:
We understand that the services of the Petitioners have been regularized recently. Petitioners claim that they have been in continuous employment ever since the year 1979 and that they are entitled to the Salary and Allowances as are paid to regular and permanent employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Following the Order made in the Writ Petitions Nos. 3077-3111 of 1985 we direct that these Petitioners shall be entitled to the Salary and Allowances on the same basis as paid to regular and permanent employees from the date of their continuous employment.
The learned Presiding Officer has taken note of the aforesaid judgment of Jeet Singh (supra) and having relied upon the same and other judgments of the Supreme Court passed the impugned order as noted above.
In view of the above, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned award. Hence the petition has no merit and is dismissed.