$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 12.02.2026 Date of decision: 01.04.2026 Uploaded on: 01.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 1162/2008 KISHAN SHARMA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. R.K. Ojha, Adv.

versus MANGT. OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, SC with Ms.

Shweta Singh, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

JUDGMENT

SHAIL JAIN, J.

1. The present Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Award dated 25th October, 2007 (impugned Award), passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court No. X, Delhi, in Industrial Dispute (I.D.) No. 2016/1994. By the said Award, the learned Labour Court declined the relief of reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages sought by the Petitioners, holding that the Petitioners/Workmen were not entitled to any relief since the employer-employee relationship could not be established by the Petitioner/Workman.

2. At the outset, it may be noted that the present Petition pertains to the alleged termination of three workmen, namely, Mr Kishan Sharma, Mr Sunder Lal and Mr Vinod Kumar. The facts giving rise to the present Petition are common to all the aforesaid Petitioners/Workmen.

3. The Petitioners state that they were engaged with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in its Horticulture Department on the post of Mali/Beldar on a casual, daily-rated/muster-roll basis and had worked for several years prior to the termination of their services. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners raised an industrial dispute which resulted in the passing of the impugned Award dated 25th October, 2007, passed by the learned Labour Court. The said Award is under challenge in the present Petition. The Petitioners seek the setting aside of the impugned Award and pray for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

4. The brief factual background leading to the filing of the present Petition is set out hereunder.

A. The Petitioners/Workmen state that they were engaged with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in its Horticulture Department at Roshanara Garden, New Delhi, in the post of Mali/Beldar. The Petitioners were employed as casual, daily rated/muster roll workers and were paid wages as revised from time to time. It is their case that other similarly placed employees performing identical work were regular employees of the Respondent and were receiving salaries in the prescribed pay scale along with allowances and other service benefits, including earned leave and casual leave, in accordance with the applicable rules. According to the Petitioners, such benefits were not extended to them despite the nature of the duties performed by them being similar.

B. It is further stated in the Petition that appointment letters were not issued to the Petitioners at the time of their engagement. The Petitioners contend that although the work performed by them was of a regular and perennial nature, they continued to be treated as casual, daily rated/muster roll workers for an extended period, without being issued any formal proof of employment.

C. The Petitioners further state that on 26th September, 1990, after having worked for more than four years, their services were terminated by the Respondent without assigning any reason.

D. Subsequently, in September 1993, the Petitioners raised an industrial dispute by filing a demand notice before the Labour- cum-Conciliation Officer, alleging that their termination was illegal and unjustified. It is stated that the notice of the demand was served upon the Respondent; however, the Respondent did not participate in the conciliation proceedings despite acknowledging it. Consequently, the appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court No. IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide Notification No.

F.24(3073)/94-Lab./51233–38 dated 27th October, 1994.

The terms of reference were as follows:

“Whether the services