Allowed

Lca No. 2337 of 2019 of Smt. Shyama v. MCD

CGIT11 Nov 2024LCA No. 2337 of 2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the claimant's petition for arrears of salary, Matric/non-matric, and 7th CPC totaling Rs. 12,37,801/- regularized from 01.04.2004. The Tribunal directed the respondent to pay the amount with 6% interest post-decision, refusing pre-decision interest under Section 33-C(2) ID Act.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to pay Rs. 12,37,801/- within 30 days with 6% interest on the period running from 12.12.2019.

Lca No. 2337 of 2019 of Smt. Shyama 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. 2337/ 2019

¶3

Smt. Shyama W/o Sh. Ram Singh, Through General Secretary, Municipal Employees Union, Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi 110054 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 her superiors. Her 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 arrears of salary, arrears of matric/non-matric, arrears of 1^ST MACP, difference of salary due to 7^th CPC amount of Rs. 18,86,541/-. However, the workman has already received an amount of Rs. 6,48,740/- hence the total due amount which has been claimed comes to Rs. 12,37,801/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred And One 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 16.01.2024.

¶9

At the stage of evidence, the claimant filed her affidavit and examined herself as WW1. In her examination in chief, the workman also relied upon documents Ex WW1/1 to Ex WW1/2. 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.

¶10

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 arrears of difference of salary, arrears of matric/non-matric, arrears of 1^ST MACP, difference of salary due to 7^th CPC to the tune of total accrued amount of Rs. 12,37,801/- deserves to be allowed.

¶11

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.

¶12

Management is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 12,37,801/- within a period of 30 days. If the computed amount of Rs. 12,37,801/- 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., 12.12.2019 till realization. An order is, accordingly, passed. File, after completion, be consigned to record room.

¶13

Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava

¶14

Presiding Officer Retired Judge of High Court of Allahabad November 11, 2024

Lca No. 2337 of 2019 of Smt. Shyama v. MCD

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lca No. 2337 of 2019 of Smt. Shyama 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. 1048 of 2021 of Smt. Sarvati Vs MCD

Lca No. 1101 of 2022 of Smt. Sumitra Vs MCD

Lca No. 1241 of 2022 of Sh. Hitesh Vs MCD

Lca No. 1480 of 2022 of Smt. Sumitra Vs MCD

Lca No. 982 of 2021 of Smt. Beena Vs MCD

Lca No. 691 of 2019 of Sh. Khemchand Vs MCD

Lca No. 415 of 2020 of Smt. Anita Vs MCD

Lca No. 2339 of 2019 of Smt. Bimla Vs MCD