JUDGMENT

CMs No.10463/2021 & 10464/2021 in LPA No.112/2021 & CM No.10376/2021 in LPA No.111/2021 (all for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The applications are disposed of.

LPA No.112/2021 & CM No.10462/2021 (for stay) & LPA No.111/2021 & CMs No.10375/2021 (for stay), 10377/2021 (for taking on record additional documents)

3. LPA No.112/2021 has been listed on urgent mentioning and has been received post Court commencement hours.

4. In the morning, when LPA No.111/2021 was called, on the request of the counsels, we passed over the same to take up both the appeals together.

5. We have heard the counsels for the appellant North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NrDMC) and East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC), as well as the counsels for the respondents in both the appeals.

6. The position which emerges is as under:

(i) The erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi i.e. prior to its trifurcation, hired the respondents on contractual basis. The respondents raised an industrial dispute for their regularisation and of which reference was made. The said industrial dispute resulted in an award dated 5th May, 2017, which is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.6128/2017 and W.P.(C) No.3276/2018 preferred by NrDMC and EDMC respectively, since in the interregnum, the trifurcation had taken place and the respondents had been allocated to either of the three entities so created;

(ii) Vide the award impugned in the writ petitions aforesaid, the respondents have been found entitled to be regularised and direction for their regularisation has been made;

(iii) It however appears that the appellants NrDMC and EDMC had in the interregnum terminated the services of the respondents;

(iv) When the writ petitions came up first before the Single Judge, the operation of the award was inter alia stayed, by restraining coercive action against the appellants, on the contention that the services of the respondents had been terminated and the termination had not been challenged separately;

(v) The respondents filed applications for restoration of status-quo ante and/or for vacation of the stay but it is informed that no orders were made and the matters remained pending; and,

(vi) Vide the orders dated 29th January, 2021 impugned in these two appeals, the applications of the respondents under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have been allowed by directing the appellants to make payment under Section 17B with effect from the date of the order.

7. The contention of the counsel for the appellant EDMC is that the respondents have already recovered excess amount from the appellant EDMC, by having a recovery certificate issued and executed prior to the date when the interim stay of the award was granted in the writ petition and are thus now not entitled to recover any further amount.

8. However, on further hearing, it transpires that what has been recovered by the respondents, is for an earlier period and is not towards the Section 17B wages as have now been directed to be paid with effect from the date of the impugned order. Thus, the said ground does not come to the rescue of the appellant EDMC.

9. Else, the argument of the counsels for the appellants EDMC and NrDMC is the same, that since the services of the respondents stood terminated and they were no longer in employment on the date of the award, there is no award of reinstatement and the question of Section 17B wages does not arise.

10. We are unable to agree.

11. Once the industrial dispute qua regularisation was pending consideration and has resulted in an award of regularisation, the termination in the interim is immaterial. There can be no regularisation without the respondents continuing to be in service.

12. As far as the argument, of no order having been made on the earlier applications of respondents for restoration of status-quo-ante and without the respondents being ordered to be reinstated no Section 17B wages being payable, is concerned, though the Single Ju