Smt. Premvati vs All India Radio on 13 October 2026

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI I.D. No. 83/2005 Smt. Premavati vs. AIR

Smt. Premvati, L.R. of Late Sh. Sohan Pal Singh C/o Delhi Labour Union, Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, T is Hazari, Delhi-110054.

…Applicant/Claimant

Versus

The Chief Engineer (Norht Zone), All India Radio & Doordarshan, Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110001.

…Management/respondent

Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: Sh. N. Bhushan, Ld. AR.

For Management/ Respondent: Sh. S.M. Arif, Ld. AR.

Award 13.10.2026

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide its Order No. L-42012/244/2004-IR (CM-II) dated 09.08.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of All India Radio & Doordarshan and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal, terms of which are as under: “Whether the demand of the Delhi Labour Union in relation to payment of wages and other facilities to Sh. Sohan Pal Singh, Casual/Helper at par with regular employees and regularisation of his services from the date of his joining the services in the establishment of All India Radio & Doordarshan is legal and justified? If yes to what relief he is entitled to and from which date?”

2. Upon receiving of the reference, notices were issued to both claimant and the managements. Workman has filed his claim statement stating that he has joined into employment of management as a “Helper” w.e.f. 01.01.1990. He was treated as a monthly paid/muster roll worker and is being paid his wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act by the Appropriate Government for unskilled workers. While the counter-parts doing the identical work and the work of the same value but being treated as regular employees and were being paid their salary in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 along with usual allowances admissible under the rules. He was working against a regular and permanent post from the initial date of joining into the employment, though, he fulfilled all qualifications and conditions required for regular appointment, but, he was not regularized. Even, the persons junior to him were regularized. As such, he had filed the claim petition after taking recourse of the conciliation and making reference therefore.

3. Management has filed its WS. He submitted that the present petition is misuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be rejected on this ground. He submitted that claimant has worked with the management only for 47 days in 1990 and 103 days in 1991 i.e. upto 06.05.1991 as a casual labour for installation of the project as per the requirement at the relevant time. He further denied that claimant fulfilled all the qualifications and conditions required for the regular appointment. He submitted that the claimant was never engaged by the management after 06.05.1991, therefore, denial of difference of salary on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work does not arise at all. He submitted that the conciliation proceedings resulted in failure not because of adamant and non cooperative attitude of the management but because the conciliation

officer of the view that the claimant had not worked 240 days in any calendar year with the management. Hence, he submitted that claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

4. Rejoinder has been filed by the claimant. He had denied the averment made in the written statement of management and affirmed the facts mentioned in his claim statement.

5. Since the issues have not been framed, terms of reference is taken as issue.

6. It is important to mention here that during the course of proceedings, workman was expired on 19th, June, 2007 leaving behind his legal heirs/representatives. Workman’s legal heir Smt. Premvati had entered into the witness box. She has reiterated the same facts as mentioned by the claimant in his claim statement. She has relied upon following documents i.e.:

(i) Ex. WW1/1: Copy of legal demand notice dated 11.08.2003.

(ii) Ex. WW1/2: Copy of Postal Receipt No. 1750.

(iii) Ex. WW1/3: Copy of Espousal dated 13.09.2003 of the Delhi Labour Union.

(iv) Ex. WW1/4: Copy of statement of claim filed before the conciliation officer.

(v) Ex. WW1/5: Copy of written statement filed by the management before the conciliation officer.

(vi) Ex. WW1/6: Copy of Certificate issued by the management in favour of the workman Sh. Sohan Pal Singh.

(vii) Ex. WW1/7: Copy of rejoinder filed before the conciliation officer.

(viii) Ex. WW1/8: Copy of details of casual workers for the year 1990.

(ix) Mark X: Copy of Muster Roll of the workman for the year 1990 & 1991.

7. The workman was put to the test of cross-examination, wherein she admitted that she was illiterate and she was not aware about the content of affidavit. She was married about 22-23 years ago. She was told that her husband was working with the management. Her husband never told as to when he left his job. Her husband never told that he left the job of the management in 1991. Her husband never told from 1991 till 2007, as to where he was working in those days.

8. Even, Sh. Surendar Bhardwaj was also examined by the workman in support of his claim. He had stated that he was the General Secretary of

the Labour Union. The workman was the member of the union. Workman had approached the union for redressal of his grievance for securing his regularization in service on the post of Helper with retrospective effect. Sh. Surendar Bhardwaj was put to the test of cross- examination, where he had filed the complaint made by the workman to the union regarding their demands, but, the same was not found on record. He was not aware whether workman was in the employment of the management at the time of raising the dispute by the time. He had filed the proof of continuation of workman with the management in the year 2006 which is Ex. WW1/6. He admitted that the workman was engaged in September 1990 as daily wager.

9. In rebuttal, management has examined One Sh. Naresh Kumar (UDC) He has reiterated the facts mentioned by him in his W.S. He further submitted that the certificate issued by the R.P.S. Chohan, Dy. Director (Admn.) is a forged one because the said certificate is without any date and number.

10. Management’s witness was put to the test of cross-examination, wherein, he admitted that three person’s namely Sabir, Ramashish and Yadram were regularized in service because they had worked for more than 240 days or more in a year as per circular issued by DoPT and Govt. of India. He admitted that Mr. R.P.S. Chohan was the Dy. Director Administration of the management. He did not verify the authenticity of the document Ex. WW1/8 of the affidavit. He had no knowledge about the date of engagement of Mr. Sabir as 14.05.1990, mentioned in WW1/8. Document marked as Mark X contains actual number of days for which the claimant has worked for the management.

11. I have heard the argument at bar, perused the record and analyzed the evidence brought by the parties. Whole of the case of the workman rests upon the premise that he had worked with the management and his services were not regularized, though, junior of him have been regularized. He relied upon the document Ex. WW1/6 which is written by the R.P.S Chohan, Dy. Director, wherein, he had stated that he had worked for two and a half years. Claimant’s counsel had also relied upon the document Mark-X and stated that he did the work continuously for 275 days not 150 days in 1990-91 as claimed by the management.

12. He has also relied upon the judgment of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation vs. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, (1985) 4 SCC 71, Where it has been held that qualification for relief under section 25 is

that he should be the workman employed under industry and has been in continuous service for not less than one year under employment. He has also relied upon the several judgments i.e. Director, Fisheries Terminal Division vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda (2010) 1 SCC 47, Hari Nandan Prasad vs. Employer I/R to Managerment of FCI, (2014) 7 SCC 190, Ajaypal Singh vs. Hayana Warehousing Corporation, (2015) 6 SCC 321, Jaggo vs. Union of India, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 & Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144, where the similar view have been echoed.

13. While the case of the respondent is that the workman had worked only for 47 days in 1990 and 103 days in 1991 i.e. upto 06.05.1991 as a casual labour, so, no claim of regularization have been arisen.

14. Before proceeding further, the texts of Sections 25F, G and H of the Act are required to be reproduced herein:

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen: No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2 [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. 25G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman

who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.

25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.—Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity 4[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re- employment and such retrenched workman] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.

15. On perusal of the above said sections, it is inferred that the claimants have no absolute right to remain in the employment of the management. The management can discontinue or retrench the workmen who have completed not less than one year of service under the employer if he has given a one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or he has paid the wages in lieu of notice period. The second condition is that the retrenchment compensation shall also be paid equivalent to 15-days of average pay for every completed year of continuous service. Besides this, appropriate government shall also be informed regarding the retrenchment. Here, the management did not do anything.

16. Section 25-B of the Act defines the term “continuous service”. Clause-2 of the said section states that where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer. Clause-2 of section 25-B of the Act is also required to be reproduced herein-

Clause-2 of Section 25-B of the Act-

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine;

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-

(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine;

(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case. Explanation.- For the purpose of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which-

(i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under the Act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment;

(ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous year;

(iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; and

(iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.]

17. Industrial law does not give any absolute protection to any workman. A workman can be removed by the employer if he comply with the condition as set out in section 25-F of the Act. However, this protection is available to only those workmen who had completed 240 days in a calendar year.

18. If, we perused the statement of claim as well as evidence adduce on behalf of the claimant by his wife then it appears that it has been cleverly drafted. Workman had not stated anywhere upto when he had worked with the management or he had been working at the time of making the reference. Evidence of WW1, the wife of deceased claimant does not know anything about the job of her husband. Even, she did not know the contents of the affidavit. WW2, the General Secretary of the Union has also no knowledge whether the claimant was in service of the management at the time of filing the claim statement. No record regarding the payment of wages, appointment letter or muster roll has been produced by the workman nor the workman had made any efforts to bring the persons who have been regularized in service by the management after completing of 240 days as per circular issued by the DoPT.

19. It appears that the workman did the work only for 47 days in 1990 and 103 days in 1991 only and he claim for regularization of the services with the employee working there simply on the ground that person junior to him have been regularized.

20. Regularisation in service is within the discretion of the department. If the workman had completed 240 days of service in a year during the relevant time, he may also be regularized. However, for reasons best known to him, he left the services. When he came to know about the regularization of aforesaid three persons, he must have thought that his services would also be regularized, and therefore, he has moved this claim. Otherwise, there is no reason for filing the claim petition at such a belated stage i.e. more than 12 years. No record has been produced by the workman to establish that he ever worked at various places under the management, nor did he make any effort to bring the witness in the witness box. The document relied upon by him i.e. Ex. WW1/6, has also not come to his rescue, as it does not bear any official letter head or office number. Document Mark-X on which the claimant’s counsel has heavily relied has not been signed by anyone. It cannot be read in evidence unless the author of this document has been ascertained. It is only the hand-written notes without any signature and without any seal

of the management showing that the workman has actually worked there continuously for 240 days.

21. Moreover, on behalf of claimant/claimant, nothing has put on record that what he did for the last 12 years when his services had not been regularized. Considering the fact that the claimant has filed the claim after 12 years after his discontinuation of services as well as the fact he has not proved that he had ever worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year, claimant is not entitled to any relief. Reference is answered accordingly. Award is passed. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the Act. Record of this file is consigned to record room.

Dated: 13.10.2026

ATUL KUMAR GARG

Presiding Officer

CGIT-Cum Labour Court-II