GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Horticulture Department of Government of NCT of Delhi. The claim was raised by the muster roll employees of the petitioner i.e. respondent/union for the minimum pay scale paid to regular employees. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sh. Niader and Others vs. Delhi Administration and Another in Writ Petition No. 9609-10/1988, the Tribunal held in favour of the respondents by granting them the minimum of the respective scale till their regular absorption.

(2.) This writ petition challenges the award dated 1st February, 2003 wherein by referring to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sh. Niader and Others vs. Delhi Administration and Another in Writ Petition No. 9609-10/1988, the following order was passed:- In Niader and Another case the concerned petitioners were directed to be regularised and the employer was also directed to absorb them and also pay the wages to them till they are absorbed on the minimum of the respective pay scale. If the facts & circumstances are considered, the case of the present workmen is not on better footing. Therefore, the workmen are only entitled to the wages as paid to the regular employees at the minimum of their pay-scale as the workmen had not acquired the regular status during the muster-roll period. The regular Pay-scale with usual allowances and other usual benefits is only applicable after their regularisation, including increments. Accordingly, it is held that the workmen are entitled to the wages at par with the regular counterparts, only at the minimum of their payscale for muster roll period. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the workmen and against the management. 11. In view of the above findings to the foregoing issue, the claim of the workmen succeeds and the same is allowed. In order to answer the query in the reference, the same is answered in affirmative and held that the workmen, as shown in Annexure-'A' are entitled to the wages as are admissible to the regular counterparts for their respective period of muster-roll employment, at the minimum of the scale. This award is accordingly passed. Appropriate Government be informed. ?

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this direction given by the Industrial Tribunal No. III is not in accordance with the law laid down in Niader's case (supra). The relevant portion of the judgment in Niader's case(supra) reads as follows:- Following a number of decisions rendered by this Court on the question of regularisation of casual workers and the need for paying them the minimum salary payable to a regular employee in a comparable post, we issue a direction to the Delhi Administration to prepare a scheme for absorbing the casual labourers, who have worked for one year and more in the Soil Conservation Department as regular employees within six months from today and to absorb all such casual labourers who are found fit to be regularised under the scheme as regular employees. Until they are so absorbed the Delhi Administration shall pay w.e.f. 1-10-1988 to each of the casual labourers working in the Soil Conservation Department the salary or wages at the rate equivalent to the minimum salary paid to a regular employee in a comparable post in the Soil Conservation Department. ? (underlining supplied)