Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Workman (Rishipal & 1240 Others)

1. Today I have disposed of w. P. (c) No. 583/2011, wherein the petitioner MCD had assailed the Industrial Award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 41108. The issue in all these cases pertains to the entitlement of the respondent workmen - who are daily rated workers, to receive wages as received by their regular counterparts working with the MCD. The present petition assails the similar award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No.52l07. The only submission additionally taken in the present petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the MCD had not adopted the wage structure as prevalent in the CPWD and 2013:DHC:7145 r'-a /t,.-f' it is argued that, therefore, instructions relied upon by the Industrial Tribunal, namely MW-1/11 dated 2I.10.1990 cannot be applied in respect of the daily rated workers of the MCD.

2. The aforesaid submission does not hold water in view of the observations made in the decision rendered in W. P. (C) No. 583/2011. I have specifically referred to the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporotion. of Delhi Vs. Jagdish Kumur & Another, W.P'(C.) NO. 3842/2000 decided on 17.10.2008, and to paragraphs 10 & 11 of that decision, which read as follows:

stcilted/highly skilled clerical categories and that it had decided by circular dated I6t' June, 1998 to revise the wages of daily rated employee or ad hoc employees which reads as follows " 'CPWD has already increased the wages of its daily rated unskilled staff also to Rs.875/- per ntonth in accordance with the decision of the Sttpreme Court and without preiudice to the rights legally vested in the parties before any iudicial forunt 'vu.e.f' I-4.1987. In view T _.[4] al> {of the fact that we follow CPWD in respect of service conditions of our Engineering staff, it was decided that the rates of daily rated staff employed by the MCD be also revised on ad hoc basis as under:

1. Un-skilled category

2. Semi-skilled

3. Skille d/hi ghly skilled Clerical category Rs.875/- p.m. Rs.925/- p.m. Rs.I 150/- p.m.'

II. Furthermore, the Department (MCD) had shown their very tight financial position, due to which the Departntent had decided the process of regularization of daily wage employees, according to phased programme besides other extra facilities already extended to them by dffirent departments. The extract of para 3 of the circular dated 16.6.1988 is reproduced as below: 'The wages of the workers will be calculated in the nxanner indicated in the circulars issued by CPWD and will be ffictive.fro* L[4].BB only in vietv of very tight financial position of the MCD and the ongoing process of regularization of daily wages employees according to phased programme besides other extra facilities already extended to them by dffirent departments. Because of large number of daily wages employees working in MCD, the increase in wages may bring additional financial liability to the tune of about Rs.6.[5] crores and we may have to cut down the civic services drastically tf the payment,s to be made fro* the date earlier than 1.4.1988- Proportionate increase will also have to be allowed to part time workers depending upon the actual duration of their duties. In order to get over the requirement of additional hands fo, enti-malaria operations, for short duration only, the department may engage 300 unskilled workers at the rate to be worked out on the basis on Rs.B75/- per month. A preamble for approval of increased rates of wages be taken to standing committee positively within two weel<s.' i 5' /2 In terms of the judgment in the case of Surender Singh v. Engineer-in-chief wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that: 'We allow both the writ petitions and direct the Respondents, qs in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras case (supra) to pay to the Petitioner and all other daily rated employees, to pay the same salary and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent employees with ffict fro^ the date when they were respectively employed. "'

3. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondent has also sought to place reliance upon the communication dated 19.05.1982 issued by the Engineering Department of the MCD, which records that the Engineering Department is following the norms of CPWD/Delhi Admin. PWD and all the scales applicable to the workers in CPWD/Delhi Admin. PWD are being implemented in the department. The aforesaid recommendation has been approved by the Standing Committee vide a decision No.2059lStg. dated 22.05.1982. In this.regard, reference is drawn to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.12612010 and connected matters titled M.C. D. Vs. Abid Ali & Ors.

4. In view of the aforesaid position, I do not find merit even in the aforesaid submission of the MCD.

5. The petitions stand disposed of in terms of the w.P.(C.) No.583/2011. order passed in VIPIN SANGHI, J JANUARY 15, 2ot[3] a5R I