Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Its Workmen Chaudhary

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI. I (Oral)

1. The respondent workmen which belonged to the category of 'Garden Choudhary' had raised industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal No.l with the following terms of reference:- "Whether the workmen working in Horticulture Department in various Zones in category C are li'pA 203/2010 Page 1 of[4] 2011:DHC:16842-DB entitled to the benefits of ACP Scheme with effect from 09.08.99 and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?" Thus, the only issue before the Tribunal was as to whether the working in the Horticulture Department in various zones in category 'C are entitled to the benefit of 'Assured Carrier Progression' S.cheme(ACP Scheme) w.e.f. 9^'^ August, 1999. It is not in dispute that ACP Scheme was promulgated by the Central Government on 9*^^ ii August, 1999. The issue, thus before the Tribunal was as to whether the MCD was also under obligation to implement this Scheme qua this category 'C employees working in Horticulture Department. Interestingly, the MCD itself accepted this fact before the Industrial Tribunal and conceded that the aforesaid Scheme was applicable to the said employees w.e.f. 9^^ August, 1999. In fact, before the Tribunal, the workmen 'Garden Choudhary' had claimed specific pay r scales i.e pay scales of 4500-7000 as first up-gradation after 12 years of service and pay scale of 5000-8000 as second up-gradation after completion of 24 years of service. The Tribunal refrained from going in the issue which particular pay scale is to be given and did not accede to the aforesaid contention of the workmen. The Tribunal simply answered the reference by stating that benefit of ACP was extended to the employees of the MCD and as per the said ACP Scheme employees LPA 203/2010 Page 2of[4]: who do not get promotion in their normal turn, were entitled to two up-gradation after completion of 12 and 24 years of service respectively. Inspite of the aforesaid categorical award made by the Industrial Tribunal confining itself to the reference in question and answering the question which even the MCD had conceded, the MCD chose to challenge the said award by filing writ petition. This writ petition has been dismissed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court ^on 4'^'^ November,2009,inter alia, recording as under:- "I fail to understand what grievance the petitioner (MCD) could have against such an innocuous award directing it to implement the ACP Scheme notified by the petitioner itself vide notification dated 09.08.1999 (Exhibit MW-1/1). In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary; writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. The stay application is also dismissed".

2. Notwithstanding the same,the present appeal is filed challenging the order of the Learned Single Judge. We acquiesce the sentiments and observations of the learned Single Judge, namely we fail to understand the grievance of the MCD in filing the writ petition or even the present appeal. The only argument raised by the learned Senior LPA 203/2010 Page 3of[4], Counsel appearing for the appellant is that in the execution petition filed by the workmen, they are claiming specific pay scale to which they are not entitled to. When no particular pay scales are decided by the learned Tribunal we fail to understand what was the necessity to challenge the award passed by the Tribunal. In case the MCD perceived that particular pay scales claimed by the workmen in the execution proceedings are not available to the workmen, it is open to ^the MCD to contest those execution proceedings on its own merits and not to challenge the award of the Tribunal on such a ground.

3. This appeai is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at ? 25,000/-. This cost shall be paid to The Delhi Legal Services Authority.

SEPTEMBER 19,2011. skb (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (SIDDHARTH MRIDUL) JUDGE