$~4 and 53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7727/2019, CM APPL. 32049/2019, CM APPL. 42709/2021 and CM APPL. 797/2023 SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Divya Swamy, Standing Counsel for MCD with Mr. Yagyawalkya Singh and Mr.Shikhar Rusia, Advocates versus SATISH & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr.Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate + W.P.(C) 1527/2023 SH SATISH KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr.Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Dr. Divya Swamy, Standing Counsel for MCD with Mr. Yagyawalkya Singh and Mr.Shikhar Rusia, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 19.01.2026

1. Mr.Rajiv Agarwal, learned counsel for the workmen/claimants/ respondents, submits that in the present case, the impugned award dated 01.02.2019 directed the management/MCD/petitioner to reinstate the workmen with 60% back wages. He submits that though the impugned award was stayed, however, on an application filed under Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, this Court vide order dated 30.11.2022, directed the management to pay to the respondents, minimum wages or last drawn wages, whichever is higher. He further submits that the arrears in terms of the order were also directed to be released to the respondents within a period of six weeks. Additionally, directions were passed that w.e.f 01.01.2023, future payment in terms of the said order be paid to the respondents on or before the 7^th of every month. Learned counsel further contends that repeatedly, time was sought to comply with the aforesaid order and on the last date of hearing i.e., 22.12.2025, a submission was made that a letter was written to the respondents dated 24.10.2025 for seeking their bank details and other documents, however, no response was received. He submits that on the same date, a communication dated 01.11.2025, was handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the receipt of which was duly acknowledged by the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Najafgarh Zone, MCD vide Diary No.5468 dated 04.11.2025, wherein all the bank details were furnished to the management. He submits that despite the above, the order has not been complied with.

2. Let an explanation by the concerned Assistant Commissioner, Najafgarh Zone, MCD, by way of an affidavit be placed on record, as to why the order dated 30.11.2025 has not been complied with till date.

3. Considering that the present petition has been pending since the year 2019, and the aforesaid conduct of the management, let a sum of Rs.20,000/, over and above the directions under Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, be paid to each of the respondents as ligation expenses, within a period of one week from today.

4. In case, the previous directions are not complied with before the next date of hearing, the concerned Additional Commissioner shall remain present in Court/through V.C. on the next date of hearing.

5. List on 20.02.2026.

6. In the meantime, the written submissions, if any, to be placed on record by the learned counsels for the parties.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J JANUARY 19, 2026 na