DDA Karamchari Morcha (Regd.) and Another vs D.D.A. and Others

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner is a union of non-technical Supervisors (NTS)/Mates working with the Respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA). It is the case of the Petitioner that while all other cadres of the Respondent DDA are being paid scales at par with those in CPWD, the NTS/Mates are being paid scales lower than that of their counterparts in CPWD, even though the duties of NTS/Mates in the Respondent DDA are more varied than that in CPWD. Reliance in this regard is placed on the minutes of the meeting dated 5th April, 1990 of the senior officers of the Respondent DDA (the counsel for the Respondent DDA clarifies that the suggestions in the said minutes were not accepted by the Competent Authority of the Respondent DDA).

The Petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 564/1991 in this Court for a direction to the Respondent DDA to extend to the members of the Petitioners the same pay scale as applicable to NTS/Mates in CPWD. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18th February, 1991 holding that it is not possible to grant the relief for the reason that there was nothing to show the exact nature of duties being performed by the Petitioners and those performed by the employees of CPWD and the best course for the Petitioners was to seek for a reference to the Industrial Court which can go into the facts and determine the dispute.

In pursuance thereto a reference dated 17th September, 1992 was made to the Industrial Tribunal as under:

Whether the mates/non-technical supervisor are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (Pre-revised) Rs. 950-1500 (Revised) and if so what directions are necessary in this respect?

The Industrial Tribunal has vide award dated 25th November, 1995 decided the reference against the Petitioners. This writ petition has been filed impugning the said award.

A perusal of the award dated 25th November, 1995 shows that the Petitioners instead of proceeding to lead evidence, as observed in the order dated 18th February, 1991 (supra), of the nature of duties performed by its members being the same as that performed by the counterparts/equivalent in CPWD, rested its case only on Resolution No. 211 dated 26th April, 1965 of the Respondent DDA (in the award the date of the Resolution at some place is given as 26th September, 1965, at other places as 25th April, 1965 but the counsels confirm that the Resolution is dated 26th April, 1965 annexure P-2 to the petition as appearing at page 27 of the paper book). The Industrial Tribunal on a reading of the said Resolution did not find the same to be laying down that the pay scales in the DDA are to be the same as in CPWD.

Resolution dated 26th April, 1965 records that the DDA through regulations framed under the Delhi Development Act had extended to its staff rules such as the Fundamental Rules, Supplementary Rules, the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules etc; that certain other rules which are in force in Government departments are also being followed in day to day working though no formal decision on that respect had been taken; vide the said Resolution the General Financial Rules, Central Treasury Rules, Accounts Codes, CPWD Codes and CPWD Account Code were also made applicable mutatis mutandis to the working of the DDA.

Being of the view that the Resolution aforesaid rather showed that whatever was applicable in CPWD was not ipso facto applicable to the Respondent DDA without a Resolution, it has been enquired from the counsel for the Petitioners as to how under the said Resolution it can be said that the pay scales of CPWD would also apply to the Respondent DDA. The counsel for the Respondent DDA has also contended that application of the rules would not imply application of the decisions taken under the rules.

The question which was for consideration before the Labour Court was whether the pay scales applicable to CPWD are applicable to DDA. The said Resolution is not found to be of assistance to the Petitioners at all.

The counsel for the Petitioners himself has contended that the case of the Petitioner is of its members being discriminated against; of while performing the same if not more onerous duties than those performed by their counterparts in CPWD similarly placed, being paid lower wages and particularly when all other cadres in the Respondent DDA are at par with the pay scales in CPWD. Unfortunately, no finding in this regard has been returned in the award impugned in this petition, because the Petitioner though had started on the right path seem to have in between lost its way.

Else, the award also has observed that the Respondent DDA should sympathetically consider the case of the Petitioners.

In the circumstances aforesaid, it has been enquired from the counsel for the Petitioner as to whether the Petitioner is agreeable to a remand to the Industrial Tribunal so that the adjudication which was intended to be done, is done. In fact at one stage, it was enquired as to whether the Petitioner has placed appointment letters of its members or any other material on record to show that their pay scales were intended to be at par. No such material has been placed though the counsel had sought time to produce the same. It is deemed expedient that upon remand, liberty is also given to the parties to file further documents. The counsel for the Petitioner has opted for remand rather than pressing the case on the basis of the Resolution aforesaid alone.

The counsel for the Respondent DDA has been heard. However since the order in the earlier writ petition is found to have remained unimplemented, it is deemed expedient to remand the matter rather than deny a relief to the Petitioners on a half baked matter.

The petition is therefore allowed to the extent of setting aside of the award impugned in this petition and by remanding the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication after allowing the parties liberty to file fresh pleadings, documents and after considering the evidence if any which may be led by the parities. Needless to state that fresh issues if any arising and in the light of this order shall also be framed. The record of the Tribunal was not requisitioned in this Court and must be available with the Tribunal only. The parties to appear before successor Industrial Tribunal on 14th March, 2011; considering that the matter has already been delayed, the Industrial Tribunal, subject to the parties co -operating and which the counsels assure, to decide the remanded matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably before end of the year.

The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.