THE MUNICIPAL CORP. OF DELHI Vs. THE WORKMEN AS REPRESENTED BY DELHI MUNICIPAL KARAMCHARI EKTA UNION AND ANR.

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 Industrial Tribunal, in the award dated 13th July, 2001 has not returned any finding on whether the workmen were residing within the Leprosy Home or not. The Industrial Tribunal proceeded on the premises that even if the workmen were living within the Leprosy Home unauthorisedly, the petitioner MCD having neither offered nor allotted the accommodation to them, was liable to pay HRA. Accordingly, a direction was given to the petitioner MCD to pay not only arrears of HRA from the date of employment of the workmen but also to continue to pay HRA as per Rules.