CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2020) 08 CAT CK 0054

Vandana Manchanda And Others vs Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (DSIDC) And Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 24 August 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 1001, 1032 Of 2020, Miscellaneous Application No. 1281 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 371 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The applicant in OA No. 1001/2020 is being engaged as Junior Stenographer in the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC) on contractual basis in the year 2008, and the applicants in OA No. 1032/2020 are stated to be engaged as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) from the year 2004 to 2006. Their grievance is that though they have served the Organization for more than a decade, their services are not being regularized and even minimum wages are not being paid. It is stated that several representations were made in this behalf, but there is no action from the respondents. The applicants contend that the denial of relief to them is contrary to law and even the policy, which is in force, framed by the Government of Delhi.

2.

We heard Ms. Pratima K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. Richa Dhawan, learned counsel for the respondents, at the stage of admission.

3.

The applicants in both the OAs are working in the DSIIDC through the medium of placement agency. The conditions of their service and the nature of rights are not immediately before us. Much would depend upon the terms of engagement and the policy that is in vogue in the respondent- organization. Though a specific prayer is made to direct the respondents to formulate a policy in this behalf, it is not for the Tribunal to embark on that. It is for the respondents to decide, whether or not to frame a policy. However, the representations made by the applicants need to be considered. If what is demanded by them accords with law, that needs to be considered. If, on the other hand, the demand does not fit into the existing legal frame, appropriate reply needs to be given. In any way, the representations cannot be kept pending indefinitely.

4.

We, therefore, dispose of the OAs directing the respondents to pass orders on the representations submitted by the applicants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it clear that if the applicants so choose, they can supplement their representations by fresh material.

There shall be no order as to costs.