Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Ors.

4) and also Circular dated 02.03.2020 (Annexure A-6) passed by the Petitioner, in the interest of justice, as it is policy matter;

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13th January, 2021. The order dated 13th January, 2021 is based on the statement made by Sh. Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, Assistant Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone, EDMC-32 on oath.

2. The statement of Sh. Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, Assistant Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone, EDMC-32 is reproduced herein under; “Today, I have filed written statement signed by me in respect of the application of the claimant under Section 33-C (2) of I.D. Act, 1947 and contents of the same may be read as part and parcel of this statement, according to which, the claimant is entitled for the benefit as claimed by him under section 33-C(2) of l.D. Act,1947. Further, the management shall process the file for the fixation of pay scale by giving the benefits of grade pay and for the calculation of arrear arose due to giving the benefit of MACP with its all consequential benefits. The management shall pay the above said difference of pay scale with arrears along with its other consequential benefits by giving the benefits of MACP with its all consequential benefits as claimed by the claimant as soon as the funds are available. Matter may be disposed of accordingly.”

3. On the basis of the statement of Sh. Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, learned Labour Court passed the impugned order whereby the petitionercorporation was directed to make the balance payment to the claimants as per statement made on its behalf within one month.

4. In the present writ petition, a very peculiar plea has been raised. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner-corporation states that Sh. Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, Assistant Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone, EDMC-32 has made the statement on oath on 13th January, 2022 before the learned Labour Court, unauthorisedly, without any instruction from the corporation and contrary to the written statement filed by the Corporation in response to the application filed by the respondent-workman under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act).

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the department has initiated not only departmental proceedings against said Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, Assistant Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone, EDMC-32, but also has also filed a police compliant against him. Learned senior counsel submits that the matter is under scrutiny at the highest level and the petitioner-corporation is making all efforts to find out the reasons behind making the said false statement.

6. Before proceeding further, this Court is appalled to note that a senior officer of Assistant Commissioner has made a statement without authority or any instruction and contrary to the record. This Court feels that such statements made by a senior officer which is alleged to have been made unauthorizedly and contrary to the record, makes the functioning of the Court very difficult. The Courts generally records the statements made by the Officer of such corporations on its face value and passes the order on the basis of their statements. If such statements are alleged to have been made unathorisedly, then it would be very difficult for the Courts to record such statements and act upon the same. The Courts function on the premises of trust and faith. This Court considers that MCD should take appropriate action and evolve a mechanism, so that no such instance is repeated. If the officer is found to be guilty, strict action should be taken.

7. This Court would not make any further observation in this regard as it may affect the departmental proceedings and the investigation and furthermore since the officer is not a party before this Court. It would be suffice to say that this should be inquired into and investigated by the appropriate /competent authority with all seriousness and it must reach to the logical conclusion.

8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, these respondent workmen were appointed on daily wages against the leave substitute’s posts in the year 1996-1998.

9. It has been submitted that these respondent workmen along with many other daily wagers were regularized in April, 2013. It has further been submitted that the present disputes revolves around the arrears and MACP of pay for the intervening period between 2004-2013.

10. Learned senior counsel submits in fact, the plea taken by the respondents-workmen are that they are entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 2004. Learned senior counsel submits that these workmen could not have been regularized w.e.f. 2004 as there were no sanctioned post at that time. Reliance has been placed on “Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others”(2006) 4 SCC 1.

11. Learned senior counsel further relied upon the circular dated 2nd March, 2020 which is regarding claim of arrears of employees regularized in the year March, 2013. Vide this circular, a clarification was issued which is as follows;

12. Learned senior counsel submits that payment of the arrears in terms of the attachment order issued by the learned Labour Court would run into around 600 crores with respect to all the employees and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others (supra), “State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors.” (2011) 2 SCC 429 and “Nand Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.” (2014) 5 SCC 300, the matter requires deliberation and the recovery certificate are liable to be stayed immediately.