NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. SHRI RAMBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the initiation of proceedings against it by respondent no. 2 for the recovery of of Rs. 5,06,022 and the demand notice dated 21st January, 2010 allegedly issued at the instance of the respondent no.1/workman after he had got an award in his favour from the Industrial Tribunal in ID No. 03/2008 directing his regularization as a Mali/Beldar as per the petitioner?s policy of regularization w.e.f. 1st April, 1997 but was not paid his wages w.e.f. 1st April, 1997 payable to a regular employee.

(2.) THE only grievance of the petitioner, as argued by its counsel, is that even though the learned Tribunal had given the relief of regularization to respondent no.1 vide its award dated 25th July, 2008 but no relief of any kind of consequential benefit was given to him and consequently his initiating recovery proceedings by approaching the Assistant Collector, respondent no. 2 herein, for getting his wages as a regular employee from 1st April, 1997 was not justified and even the action of the Assistant Collector in issuing the recovery certificate was not justified.

(3.) THERE is no doubt that there was no specific direction given to the petitioner-management to pay respondent no.1-workman his wages also as a regular employee w.e.f 1st April, 1997 but it was clearly mentioned in the award that respondent no.1-workman had to be regularized as per the management?s policy of regularization of daily wagers. During the course of hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner-management had admitted that as per the policy of regularization formulated by petitioner-management temporary/daily wage employees who were to be regularized were entitled to all consequential benefits also. Learned counsel had also today produced before me two awards of the Industrial Tribunal no. II passed on 15th April, 2008 in I.D. No. 84/2005 & I.D. No. 86/2005 wherein under similar circumstances, as exist in the present case, the NDMC had in its written statement opposed the same kind of relief which the respondent no.1 herein had claimed but after framing of issues the petitioner- management through its Director (Horticulture) had agreed for passing of an award for the regularization of the concerned workmen along with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 1st April, 1997. Accordingly the awards were passed in those two cases by the Industrial Tribunal directing the regularization of the concerned workmen with all consequential benefits was 1st April, 1997. The statements made on behalf of the NDMC by its Director (Horticulture) in these two cases clearly show that as per the policy of regularization of daily wagers any worker who was to be regularized was entitled to get consequential benefits also. However, the benefit of wages of a regular employee was not given to the respondent no. 1 by the petitioner herein despite the fact that the Industrial Tribunal had directed his regularization as per the policy of regularization framed by NDMC. No justification was given by the petitioner as to why in the present case the claim of the workman was not conceded as was done in the case of other workers.