Allowed

Lca No. 1780 of 2022 of Sh. Narender Kumar v. MCD

CGIT8 Nov 2024LCA No. 1780 of 2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed the claimant's application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for regularization arrears. Awarded principal amount of Rs. 3,47,427/- but rejected prayer for 18% p.a. interest, directing 6% delay interest instead.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for 18% interest denied. Management directed to pay Rs. 3,47,427/- and 6% interest from filing date.

Lca No. 1780 of 2022 of Sh. Narender Kumar Vs MCD — Pension and Retirement Benefits | CGIT (2024)

¶1

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI – 1, ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI

¶2

LCA NO. 1780/ 2022

¶3

Sh. Narender Kumar S/o Sh. Ved Ram, Through Authorized Representative, C/o 2^nd Floor, 8, School Lane, Opp. Lalit Hotel, Bengali Market, New Delhi 110001 Claimant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Center Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Minto Road, Delhi- 110002 Management

¶6

Shri Rajiv Agarwal, A/R, for the claimant None for the management

¶7

ORDER

¶8

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., 01.04.2003. Thereafter, the claimant was also promoted by the management to the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector w.e.f. 21.02.2014. But the claimant has not been paid any difference of salary, arrear of 6^th CPC, arrears of 1^ST MACP, difference of salary due to 7^th CPC amount of Rs. 3,47,427/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Four Hundred And Twenty Seven Only). The claimant further claims interest on the due amount @ 18% per annum and litigation cost. The claim of the claimant has remained unrebutted and the management was proceeded as ex-parte on 30.01.2024.

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

WW1/1 to Ex WW1/3(Colly.). 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.

¶12

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. 01.04.2003. The management failed to rebut the claim of the workman. In view of this the claim of the claimant regarding difference of salary, arrear of 6^th CPC, arrears of 1^ST MACP, difference of salary due to 7^th CPC to the tune of total accrued amount of Rs. 3,47,427 /- deserves to be allowed.

¶13

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.

¶14

Management is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 3,47,427/- within a period of 30 days. If the computed amount of Rs. 3,47,427/- 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., 14.09.2022 till realization. An order is, accordingly, passed. File, after completion, be consigned to record room.

¶15

Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava Presiding Officer Retired Judge of High Court of Allahabad November 08, 2024

¶16

Lca No. 1780 of 2022 of Sh. Narender Kumar v. MCD

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lca No. 1780 of 2022 of Sh. Narender Kumar v. MCD

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lca No. 1248 of 2022 of Smt. Bego Vs MCD

Lca No. 1414 of 2022 of Smt. Sureshvati Vs MCD

Lca No. 1858 of 2019 of Sh. Vijay Pal Vs MCD

Lca No. 353 of 2018 of Sh. Ishwar Singh Vs MCD

Sh. Om Prakash Vs MCD

Sh. Devender Jinwal Vs MCD

Sh. Ratan Lal Vs MCD

Smt. Rajesh Devi Vs MCD