MCD Vs. TARAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition, the Petitioner assails the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Room No. 2, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No. 91/2007 on 20th February, 2008 whereby the Respondent was directed to consider the case of the regularization of the workman as per policy. It was held that the workman was entitled to 50% of wage as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948 from the date of her initial appointment and the Respondent was directed to pay 50% of wage to the workman as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 after deducting the actual amount paid. I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the Respondent raised a dispute which was sent for adjudication to the learned Tribunal with the following terms of reference:

(3.) IN the statement of the claim the Respondent stated that she was employed with the Management on 15th February, 1985 as full time Safai Karamchari with MCD at its Maternity Centre at Hari Nagar. At the time of filing of the claim she was working at IEC Cell, Sector -7, Rohini and receiving the salary from Hari Nagar Centre. Her last drawn wages was Rs.560/ - per month. She was discharging the duties of Safai Karamchari from 9.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. It is further contended that her counter parts were treated as regular employees and were being paid their salary in proper pay scale. The Petitioner in its written statement refuted the claim of the Respondent and stated that the Respondent was engaged as a part time Safai Karamchari on a fixed amount of Rs. 560/ - per month at maternity home. It was stated that she worked only for four hours per day as Safai Karmachari and cannot claim parity with full time Safai Karamchari who were engaged as per the Recruitment Rules, were full time employees of the Management and paid accordingly. The Respondent being part time employee was not covered under the policy of regularization. The parties led their evidence. The Respondent examined herself whereas the Management examined three witnesses. The Respondent in her cross -examination admitted that she was working part time on a consolidated salary of Rs. 560/ -.