Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Sh. Pardeep vs MCD on 8 November 2024
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI – 1,
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
LCA NO. 193/ 2018
Sh. Pardeep S/o Sh. Mahender,
Through General Secretary,
Municipal Employees Union,
Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi 110054
Claimant
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Center
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Minto Road,
Delhi- 110002
Management
Shri Rajiv Agarwal, A/R for the claimant Shri Harbans Kaushal, A/R for the management
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. An application was moved by the claimant, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter “the Act”) with the averments that he joined service with the management as Safai Karamchari. Since then, the claimant is discharging service to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. His services were regularized on the post of Safai Karamchari with retrospective effect i.e., 01.04.2004. But the claimant has not been paid any difference of salary amount of Rs. 13,35,778/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred And Seventy Eight Only). The claimant further claims interest on the due amount @ 18% per annum and litigation cost. The management had filed a reply to the application filed by the workman wherein preliminary objections were submitted however, the management failed to file any calculation chart despite several opportunities. Therefore, the defence of the management was struck off on 29.03.2022.
2. At the stage of evidence, the claimant filed his affidavit and examined himself as WW1. In his examination in chief, the workman also relied upon documents Ex
WW1/1 to Ex WW1/4. No one turned up from the management side for cross examination of the workman witness. The cross examination of the workman witness was treated as nil. Workman evidence was thereafter closed. Management neither appeared nor led evidence. The management evidence was closed.
3. I have gone through the pleadings and documents placed on record by the parties and have heard the arguments from the AR of the Claimant. The workman has proved that the workman was regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2004. The management failed to rebut the claim of the workman. In view of this the claim of the claimant regarding difference of salary to the tune of total accrued amount of Rs. 13,35,778/- deserves to be allowed.
4. Though the claimant has prayed for interest @18% per annum, the same is not allowed in view of the fact that in a petition u/s 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act, the Tribunal is only empowered to compute the amount but cannot confer a new right on the workman like interest. Similar view has been taken in the case of Union of India vs. Presiding Officer CGIT in 1984 AISLJ 567 and by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of King Airways vs. Captain Manjit Singh decided in WPC No. 2666 of 2010.
5. Management is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 13,35,778/- within a period of 30 days. If the computed amount of Rs. 13,35,778/- is not made within a period of 30 days hereof, the management shall be liable to pay 6% interest on the full amount from the date of filing this application i.e., 19.07.2018 till realization. An order is, accordingly, passed, File, after completion, be consigned to record room.
Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava Presiding Officer Retired Judge of High Court of Allahabad November 08, 2024