J U D G M E N T

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.:

1. This Letters Patent Appeal seeks to assail judgment and order dated 31.05.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in Writ Petition bearing No. WP(C) 3339/2024, titled Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Pradeep Rana & Ors. On the basis of advance notice, respondents entered appearance through counsel and at request of both sides we heard final arguments at the initial stage itself.

2. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows.

2.1 The present respondents joined the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (now the unified Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the appellant herein) as Assistant Malaria Inspector on contractual basis in the months of September-October 2010 through interview process in pursuance of vacancy advertisement.

2.2 During the period from the year 2012 to 2014, the appellant conducted process for direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Malaria Inspector through a vacancy notice/advertisement published by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB). According to the appellant, some of the contractual employees opted not to appear in the recruitment examination while some of them failed to qualify the same. Through the recruitment examination conducted by DSSSB, regular appointments to the post of Assistant Malaria Inspector were carried out in the year 2017.

2.3 In the meanwhile, the present respondents through Union raised an industrial dispute and filed a Statement of Claim before the Industrial Tribunal, thereby seeking regularization of their contractual services with retrospective effect from the initial date of their joining and payment of difference of salaries on the principle of “Equal Pay For Equal Work”.

2.4 By way of judgment and order dated 11.08.2023, the learned Industrial Tribunal decided the Industrial Reference in favour of the present respondents, directing regularization of their services on the post of Assistant Malaria Inspector with effect from the initial dates of their joining and also awarded consequential benefits; the present appellant was directed to ensure compliance within 60 days of publication of the Award, failing which it would pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of accrual till the date of payment to the present respondents.

2.5 The appellant preferred a writ petition against the said award of the Industrial Tribunal, but the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by way of the judgment and order impugned in this intra-court appeal.

3. During arguments, learned counsel for appellant took us through the above matrix and contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for appellant contended that since the respondents did not undertake any examination conducted by the recruitment agency of DSSSB, they cannot be brought at par with the regularly recruited Assistant Malaria Inspectors. Learned counsel elaborated that in the case of Vinod Kumar & Ors vs Union of India & Ors., relied upon by the learned Single Judge the contractual employees had undergone a selection process, which did not happen in the present case, so reliance on the said judgment was not correct. It was also argued on behalf of the appellant that implementation of the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal would lead to seniority disputes and heartburn between the present respondents and those recruited through direct recruitment examination.

Learned counsel for appellant also argued that the principle of „Equal Pay for Equal Work‟ could not be invoked in the present case by treating the contractual employees at par with regular employees. It was also argued on behalf of appellant that regularization of the respondents in compliance with the impugned order would not only be at the cost of those waiting to compete, but would also lead to avoidable financial burden on the Corporation, so the impugned order is liable to be se