LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-423

MUNICIPAL CORP OF DELHI Vs. WORKMEN AS REPRESENTED BY DELHI MUNICIPAL KARAMCHARI EKTA UNION & ANOTHER

Decided On May 19, 2010
Municipal Corp Of Delhi Appellant
V/S
Workmen As Represented By Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Union And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which falls for adjudication in this writ petition is whether an employee in unauthorized occupation of the premises of the employer is nevertheless entitled to HRA.

(2.) The eight concerned workmen represented through the respondent No.1 Union were originally admitted to the Leprosy Home run by the petitioner MCD as patients afflicted with the disease of Leprosy and were as such residing in the accommodation meant for the patients. Upon being cured, they were employed by the petitioner MCD for carrying on various Class-IV duties in the same Leprosy Home as Sweeper, Ward Boy etc. It is the case of the petitioner MCD that the said workmen inspite of being cured and employed with petitioner MCD, did not vacate the portions of the Leprosy Home in which they were earlier allowed to reside as patients and continued to reside therein. The petitioner MCD in the circumstances, while paying salary to the said workmen did not pay HRA. It appears that two of the said workmen filed applications under Section 33C(1) and in which the HRA due to them was computed and directed to be paid. However, to avoid filing of such successive applications under Section 33C(1), the eight workmen through their Union raised a dispute and on which the following reference was made on 13th February, 1996 to the Industrial Tribunal:-

(3.) The workmen before the Industrial Tribunal, while not disputing that they were initially admitted as patients in the Leprosy Home and were living in the accommodation meant for the patients, contended that they had since made Juggis/Jhopadis immediately outside the Leprosy Home and controverted that they were continuing to reside in the Leprosy Home. They further contended that they were never offered official accommodation and hence were entitled to HRA. Conversely, the petitioner MCD contended before the Industrial Tribunal that it was being forced to take steps for eviction of the workmen from the portions of Leprosy Home in their unauthorized occupation.