Smt. Poonam & Ors vs GNCTD & ICSIL on 22 October 2026

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

Counsels:

For Applicants/ Claimants: Sh. Rajiv Aggarwal and Sh. N. Bhushan, Ld. ARs for the claimants.

For Managements/ Respondents: Sh. Mohnish Sehrawat, Ld. AR for management-1 (GNCTD).

Order dated: 22.10.2026 This order shall dispose of an application filed by six affected workmen seeking execution and implementation of the orders dated 25.11.2022 and 05.12.2022, which were continued till the finalisation of the case. In substance, the case of the six applicants, namely, (i) Khodaija Begum, W/o Aslam Hussain; (ii) Ravina, W/o Pradeep Kumar; (iii) Deepak Kumar Verma, S/o Dinesh Kumar Verma; (iv) Md. Sarfaraz Mujahid, S/o Quamruddin; (v) Mohd. Shabbir Hasan, S/o Shamsuddin Ansari; and (vi) Trilok Chand Vyas, S/o Dwarka Nath, is that they have been working as Data Entry Operators in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, South West District, GNCTD, and their main industrial dispute bearing no. I.D. No. 55/2022 in pending. They were granted protection by this Tribunal in the present application filed under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when their services were threatened to be terminated during the pendency of I.D. no. 55/2022. The applicants submit that GNCTD issued an office order dated 28.09.2026 for the deployment of 19 Data Entry Operators through M/s KBS Services for the next six months. However, the names of all six applicants are absent from the said order, which is in violation of the orders passed by this Tribunal. Hence, the applicants have prayed that this Tribunal direct Management-1 not to discontinue their services. Pursuant to the application, the Ld. AR for Management-1, Sh. Mohnish Sehrawat, appeared. He submitted that the department had invited an open tender for the deployment of 19 workmen. M/s KBS Services was awarded the contract for engagement of 19 DEOs. He

further submitted that it was within the discretion of the contractor to deploy the personnel. However, he did not dispute the orders passed by this Tribunal directing the continuation of the services of the 19 workmen till the finalisation of the present case. It is also important to mention that, after the matter was reserved for orders, the Ld. AR for Management-1 sought permission to file a reply to the application in hand. He was granted liberty to file a reply and written submissions. In its reply, Management-1 has stated that the execution application is liable to be dismissed at the threshold for non- joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties, as the applicants themselves admit that they were initially deployed as Data Entry Operators through the outsourcing agency M/s Intelligent Communications Systems India Ltd. (ICSIL), which is Management-2 in the present matter, and, as averred in paragraph 5 of the execution application, from July 2024 onwards, the applicants were engaged through M/s KBS Services, which was the vendor engaged through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM). It is further submitted that the interim orders dated 25.11.2022 and 05.12.2022 were not directed against Management-1 alone. The operative directions in both orders were addressed jointly to Management-1 and Management-2, i.e., GNCTD and ICSIL. However, the applicants have allegedly confined the execution proceedings to Management-1 alone. Further, it is submitted that these directions are not executable as a decree under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. Accordingly, Management-1 has prayed that the application be dismissed. I have heard the arguments advanced by the parties and perused the record. Before deciding the present application for execution, it is necessary to refer to Section 49(9) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, as well as the orders passed by this Tribunal on 25.11.2022 and 05.12.2022 in the present case, which is, in fact, an application under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, arising as an offshoot of the main reference bearing I.D. No. 55/2022, the schedule of which is as follows: "1. Whether the claim of Delhi Prashasanik Vikas Vibhag Industrial Employees Union vide letter dated 9.9.2021 in respect of Smt. Poonam & 18 Others against the management of Govt of NCT of Delhi, Delhi that the contract /arrangement between the Government of NCT of Delhi and the management of Intelligent Communication Systems India Ltd(ICSIL) is sham and bogus, is proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what reliefs the disputant workers are entitled and what other directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?"

2. Whether the demand of Delhi Prashasanik Vikas Vibhag Industrial Employees Union vide letter dated 9.9.2021 in respect of Smt. Poonam & 18 Others against the management of the Govt of NCT of Delhi, Delhi/management of Intelligent Communication Systems India Ltd(ICSIL) for paying them entire difference of salary on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" from their initial joining and all consequential benefits thereof is proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what reliefs the disputant workers are is entitled and what other directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?"

Section 49 in THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CODE, 2020:-

49. Procedure and powers of arbitrator, conciliation officer, Tribunal and National Industrial Tribunal.

(9) Every award made, order issued or settlement arrived at by or before a Tribunal or a National Industrial Tribunal shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for execution of orders and decree of a civil court under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and for that purpose such Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court. In this respect, orders dated 25.11.2022 and orders dated 05.12.2022 are required to be reproduced herein: 25th November, 2022 Present: Shri Rajiv Agarwal, Ld. A/R for the claimants. Two separate petitions have been moved today on behalf of the workman requesting urgent hearing of the matter and grant of ex-parte interim order preventing the respondent/management not to change their service condition until further orders. As seen, the proceeding has been filed today only. The workmen in the application have stated that they are serving for the management No.1 for a pretty long time.

They have raised an industrial dispute claiming regularization of their service which is pending before this tribunal as ID No.55/2022.

During the pendency of the dispute the management has issued an office order dated 25.11.2022 seeking to replace the workmen by another set of outsourced employees. Thus, a complaint u/s 33A has been filed today. A clear direction has been issued by management No.1 in the letter dated 25.11.2022 to replace the workmen through the concerned outsourcing agency and reply compliance positively by 29.11.2022. If the said direction is carried out the demand for regularization shall become infructous. In the premises the workmen have prayed that the management till its appearance in this proceedingbe restrained by an ex-parte order from carrying out the

direction given in the letter dated 22/11/2022 and not to replace them through the service providing agency as the same is required in the ends of justice. The Ld. A/R for the claimants further submitted that the ex-parte adinterim order can be granted by the Tribunal if the same is required in the ends of justice.

Considering the submission and without forming any opinion on the merit of the matter and since the claimants have a primafacie case in their favour, it is felt proper to extend an interim protection to the applicants against the apprehended termination of their service pursuant to the order No. F.1(190)/GA/DC/HQ/2022/1942 dated 25.11.2022 till the appearance of the respondent and filing of reply by them.

It is directed that the management No.1 and 2 shall not terminate the service of the claimants and maintain the statusquo as on today until the next date fixed for appearance of the respondent. A copy of this order be made available to the claimants for Dasti Service on the respondent. Call the matter on the date already fixed.

List of the claimants are as follows:-

1. Md. Sarfaraz Mujahin S/o Quam Ruddin

2. Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kumar

3. Deepak Kumar Verma S/o Dinesh Kumar Verma

4. Khodijia Begum W/o Aslam Hussain

5. Shilpy Singh W/o Rakesh Kumar

6. Sachin Singh S/o Hri Rambir

7. Mohd. Shabbir Hasan, S/o Shamsuddin Ansari

8. Poonam D/o Kirti Singh,

9. Aman Mishra S/o Ram Vishal Mishra

10. Pankaj Kumar S/o Late Prabhu Nath Thakur

11. Vijay S/o Tejpal

12. Rahul Kaushik S/o Sh. Mange Ram

13. Anjay Kumar Yadav, S/o Chaturanand Yadav

14. Sapna Kanojia D/o Manohar Lal

15. Vatan Singh, S/o Late Bhikam Singh.

05/12/2022 Present: Shri R. Pandey and Shri N. Bhushan, Ld. A/R alongwith claimant. Shri Sandeep Ld. A/R with Deepti for the management i.e ICSIL. Shri Sharad, SDM for the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD & Anr.

Today the matter stands posted for appearance of management No. 1 and 2. Both the managements appeared. The claimant is directed to serve copy of the claim statement to the A/R for the managements in course of the day. Call

the matter on 20.02.2022 for reply to be filed by the managements. The interim order dated 25.11.2022 is directed to continue till the next date.

One of the claimants namely Harish Kumar, Vinod, Trilok Yadav and Ravina have filed an application supported by an affidavit stating therein that he is one of the claimants of this proceeding. Ten claimants on 25.11.2022 had moved an application requesting urgent hearing and grant of exparte interim order preventing the respondent management from changing their service condition until further orders. But for some personal difficulty they could not appear before the oath commissioner to swear the affidavit and as such the interim order dated 25.11.2022 could not be passed in their case. Since they are apprehending change of service condition and their 33A application is pending, they may be granted the same protection as was granted to the 10 other claimants by order dated 25.11.2022.

Considering the submission and without forming any opinion on the merit of the matter and since the claimants have a primafacie case in their favour, it is felt proper to extend the interim protection to the claimants Harish Kumar, Vinod, Trilok Yadav and Ravina against the apprehended termination of their service pursuant to the order No. F.1(190)/GA/DC/HQ/2022/1942 dated 25.11.2022 till the next date and filing of reply by the management. It is directed that the management No.1 and 2 shall not terminate the service of the claimant and maintain status quo ason today till the next date. A copy of this order be made available to the claimants Harish Kumar, Vinod, Trilok Yadav and Ravina for Dasti Service on the respondent. Call the matter on the date already fixed.

List of the claimants are as follows:-

1. Harish Kumar

2. Vinod

3. Trilok Yadav

4. Ravina Vide order dated 25.11.2022, both Management-1 and the outsourcing agency were restrained from terminating the services of the claimants, who were 15 in number. Subsequently, vide order dated 05.12.2022, four more claimants were granted interim protection. Thereafter, the said orders were directed to continue till further orders. An ex-parte order was passed against Management-1 due to its continued absence on 12.09.2022 in the main reference bearing I.D. no. 55/2022. Upon an application filed by Management-1, the said order was set aside vide order dated 10.09.2026. In the meanwhile, the present application has been filed by six out of the 19 claimants, seeking execution of the interim orders dated 25.11.2022 and 05.12.2022 passed in the present matter, i.e., I.D. no. 286/2022 (33-A application).

It is an admitted fact that, originally, 19 workmen had filed the case bearing I.D. No. 55/2022. During the pendency of the proceedings, both managements were restrained from terminating the services of the 19 claimants till the finalisation of the case in I.D. no. 286/2022 (offshoot of main reference bearing I.D. no. 55/2022). It is further admitted that Management-1 had also filed an application seeking vacation of the interim protection. However, the said application has not yet been decided for one reason or another. It is also admitted that another contractor was awarded a contract through the GeM portal for the deployment of 19 DEOs, but the said contractor did not engage these six applicants, and other employees were deployed in their place. When the industrial dispute is pending and Management-1 has been restrained from terminating the services of all 19 workmen, who had been working in its establishment, Management-1 cannot take the plea that the deployment of the workmen was at the discretion of the contractor to whom the contract was awarded. A condition should have been imposed upon the contractor to retain these 19 DEOs before awarding the contract, or Management-1 should have retained these DEOs directly on fixed-term contracts. Therefore, the argument of Management-1 that the deployment was at the discretion of the contractor does not hold merit. The contractor may have changed, but the applicants, whose services are protected by the orders of this Tribunal, cannot be replaced at the contractor’s discretion. The restraining order was primarily directed against Management-1, which could have continued the services of the claimants at its establishment until the disposal of its application seeking vacation of the interim protection or the main reference. So far so, arguments of management-1 that interim directions cannot be enforced through decree of a civil court is not tenable in view of section 49(9) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. In view of the above discussion, the plea of Management-1 that the restraining order was directed against both managements is not tenable, as Management-1 was in a position to award the contract to the new contractor through the GeM portal. Accordingly, Management-1 is directed to ensure that the contractor continues the services of these six applicants in compliance with the interim orders passed by this Tribunal. In the event the contractor fails to comply with the directions issued by Management-1 in this regard, Management-1 shall be at liberty to take

appropriate steps for cancellation of the contract or to pay salaries to these applicants directly. Management-1 is further directed to pay the salaries of these six employees for the period commencing from the date of discontinuation of their services until the date of their re-engagement at its establishment within two weeks of receipt of this order failing which appropriate steps shall be taken for implementation of this order treating it as a decree of civil court. A copy of this order be sent to the Ld. ARs for both parties via email. Ordered accordingly.

ATUL KUMAR GARG

Dated 22.10.2026 Presiding Officer

CGIT – cum – Labour Court – II