Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
I.S. MEHTA, J.
WORKMEN OF DDA – Petitioner
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 4690 of 2004
Decided On : 29-02-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Varun Prasad and Mr. G.S. Charya, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of workers to equal pay for equal work, as governed by the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, and relevant policies and manuals.
Headnote:
Equal Pay for Equal Work - Industrial Dispute - Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 - CPWD Manual - Wages at par with regular employees - Impugned Award set aside - Remand for fresh adjudication
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-workmen, claiming wages at par with regular employees, filed a Writ Petition to set aside an Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The dispute arose from their employment as muster roll employees and their claim for equal pay for equal work as regular pump operators.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner-workmen were entitled to wages at par with regular employees for the duration of their muster-roll employment. The Court set aside the impugned Award and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing fair opportunities for both parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner-workmen were entitled to wages at par with regular employees for their muster-roll employment as pump operators, and if so, what relief and directions were necessary.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the CPWD Manual, the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, and the policy of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in determining the entitlement of the petitioner-workmen to equal pay for equal work. The Court emphasized the need for fair adjudication in light of the policy and set aside the previous Award.
Final Decision: The impugned Award was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication, with a direction to dispose of the matter within six months.
I.S. MEHTA, J.
1. The present petitioners, i.e. Workmen, DDA (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-workmen) have preferred the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate Writ, order or direction to set aside the impugned Award dated 01.05.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. III, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator) in I.D. No. 20 of 1997.
2. The brief facts stated are that the petitioner-workmen, i.e. Shri Ramgopal Singh, Shri Adil Singh, Shri Rajinder Prasad, Shri Kartar Singh, Shri Kamal Kishore, Shri Hoshiar Singh, Shri Nepal Singh, Shri Virender Singh, Shri Anil Kumar, Shri Prem Chand, Shri Amrinder Kumar Singh, Shri Bhim Singh, Shri Yogender Kumar, Shri Ashok Kumar, Shri Rakesh Kushwaha, Shri Babu Ram, Mohd. Sarfarajuddin and Shri Ashok Kumar, whose cause of action has been exposed through the DDA Mazdoor Union wherein the petitioner-workmen were claiming the wages at par with the regular employees in the category of pump operator for the duration of their muster roll employment, i.e. pay scale of Rs. 260-350 revised to Rs. 950-1400 w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
3. Thereafter, the Government vide order No. F. 24(4577)/96-Lab./53334-38 dated 23.12.1996 sent the dispute of the petitioner-management to the learned Industrial Adjudicator for adjudication:
Whether S/Shri Ram Gopal Singh, Adil Singh, Bhim Singh, Yogender Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Rajender Prasad, Kartar Singh, Kamal Kishore, Hoshiar Singh, Nepal Singh, Virender Singh, Anil Kumar, Prem Chand, Amrinder Kumar Singh, Rakesh Kushwaha, Babu Ram, Mohd. Sarfrajuddin and Ashok Kumar are entitled to wages at par with the regular employees for the duration of their muster-roll employment on daily wages, and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
4. The petitioner-workmen were performing their duties as muster roll employees and were paid minimum wages from time to time. However, the petitioner-workmen also took the duty of pump operator, which was permanent in nature.
5. The petitioner-workmen are/were skilled workmen and remained in the continuous employment of the respondent-management. Consequently, following petitioner-workmen were regularised and seven petitioner-workmen were transferred from the respondent-management to MCD:-
S. No.
Name
Period of Muster Roll
Date of Regularisation
Date of Transfer to MCD
1.
Shri Ramgopal Singh
01.03.1983 to 18.09.1989
19.09.1989
2.
Shri Adil Singh
12.01.1983 to 18.09.1989
19.09.1989
3.
Shri Rajinder Prasad
01.01.1982 to 18.09.1989
19.09.1989
4.
Shri Kartar Singh
17.01.1986 to 31.12.1993
01.01.1994
5.
Shri Kamal Kishore
06.09.1982 to 31.12.1984
01.01.1985
6.
Shri Hoshiar Singh
13.04.1983 to 18.09.1989
19.09.1989
7.
Shri Nepal Singh
02.11.1981 to 05.03.1984
06.03.1984
8.
Shri Virender Singh
01.12.1983 to 18.09.1989
19.09.1989
9.
Shri Anil Kumar
10.08.1983 to 18.09.1989
19.09.1989
10.
Shri Prem Chand
29.07.1983 to 18.09.1989
19.09.1989
11.
Shri Amrinder Kumar Singh
01.01.1883 to 18.09.1989
19.09.1989
12.
Shri Bhim Singh
19.05.1986 to 18.09.1989
-----
13.
Shri Yogender Kumar
20.02.1986 to 25.04.1993
26.04.1993
14.
Shri Ashok Kumar
20.02.1986 to 25.04.1993
26.04.1993
15.
Shri Rakesh Kushwaha
09.07.1986 to 25.04.1993
26.04.1993
16.
Shri Babu Ra
