LPA 112/2021 & LPA 111/2021

Page 1 of 5

$~30 & 18

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

LPA 112/2021

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Appellant

Through:

Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv.

Versus

VANDANA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Ms. Meghna De,

Ms. L. Gangmei and Mr. N. Bhushan,

Advs.

AND

+

LPA 111/2021

EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

..... Appellant

Through:

Ms. Namrata Mukim and Ms. Garima

Jindal, Advs.

Versus

JOLLY JOSEPH & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Counsel

for

the

respondents

(appearance not given).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

%

16.03.2021

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

LPA 112/2021 & LPA 111/2021

Page 2 of 5

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 5^th 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

LPA 112/2021 & LPA 111/2021

Page 3 of 5

were made and the matters remained pending; and,

(vi)

Vide the orders dated 29^th 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 or