* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 7^th February, 2024 Pronounced on: 6^th May, 2024 + W.P.(C) 2662/2018, CM APPL. 10859/2018 & 10861/2018 DELHI MSW SOLUTIONS LIMITED (DMSWSL) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Raj Shekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr.Matrugupta Mishra, Mr.Nipun dave and Ms.Sonakshi, Advocates versus THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) &

ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Divyam Nandrajog, Panel counsel for GNCTD.

Mr.M. Hussain, Advocate for R-2 CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant petition under Articles 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 23^rd May, 2017 passed by the learned Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi in Claim bearing no. ND-20(01)/2017-PP.DYC under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. On 17^th July, 2009, the petitioner, i.e, Delhi MSW Solutions Limited and respondent no. 3, i.e., the North MCD had entered into a Concession Agreement in respect of the BQT project for construction of a W.P.(C) 2662/2018 Page 1 of 36 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SARIKA sanitary landfill facility for collection, transportation and disposal of the municipal solid waste for the areas covered under the Agreement.

3. Under Section 7(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter “the Act”), a Registration Certificate bearing No. ALC-II/46(14)/2010-R was issued to the petitioner on 10^th May, 2010, by the Ministry of Labour which allowed them to employ 400 or more contract labourers.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner commissioned an integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management Plant along with a Waste to Energy Plant having capacity of 24 MW. Subsequently, the petitioner company started collecting Municipal Solid Waste (hereinafter “MSW”) from Civil Lines, Rohini, Vasant Kunj and Dwarka-Pappankalan Zones, and started processing the same in an eco friendly and scientific manner.

5. On 16^th October, 2015, the respondent no. 2 (workers union of the petitioner‟s company) filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on behalf of the contract workers employed by the petitioner company claiming wages and other benefits equivalent to the wages and other benefits available to the regular employees of the respondent no. 3, i.e., the Commissioner, North MCD doing similar work. The said application was transferred to the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central) for adjudication vide order dated 16^th September, 2016.

6. On 23^rd May, 2017, the impugned order was passed by the learned Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) holding that the workmen affiliated with the respondent no. 2/union are entitled to the same wages rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service as are W.P.(C) 2662/2018 Page 2 of 36 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SARIKA applicable to the workmen directly employed by respondent no. 3 since they are performing similar work.

7. Pursuant to the above, on 15^th November, 2017, a demand notice was issued to the petitioner by the workers‟ union seeking recovery of Rs.2,13,23,608/-, i.e., the amount claimed by calculating the difference in salaries for works done during the period of November, 2015 to June

2017.

8. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23^rd May, 2017, the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking quashing of the same.

PLEADINGS

9. The petitioner has filed the instant petition on 26^th February, 2018 challenging the impugned order on following grounds:

“..A. It is submitted that the Petitioner is an "Establishment" within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act and is the "Principal Employer" within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act qua the workers employed by it in its establishment. Fortifying this legal and factual position, the Company further submits that no L