North Delhi Municipal Coorporation vs Vandana & 22 Ors

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 04.08.2026
Pronounced on : 30.10.2026
Uploaded on : 02.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC013200682017
+ W.P.(C) 6128/2017, CM APPL. 25462/2017, CM APPL.
8588/2018, CM APPL. 15611/2021, CM APPL. 24634/2024
and CM APPL. 65733/2024

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL COORPORATION.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing
Counsel MCD and Mr. Vaibhav
Tripathi, Advocates
versus

VANDANA & 22 ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Ms.
Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmei
and Mr. Tusshay Singh,
Advocates

# CNR No. DLHC010905222018
+ W.P.(C) 3276/2018 & CM APPL. 12892/2018
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing
Counsel MCD and Mr. Vaibhav
Tripathi, Advocates
versus

JOLLY JOSEPH & ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Ms.
Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmei
and Mr. Tusshay Singh,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 1 of 23

Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT
1. By way of this common judgment, this Court shall decide two
writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both
petitions assail the impugned award dated 05.05.2017 passed by the
Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, in I.D. No. 166/16 ( Old
I.D. No. 197/11 ), whereby 23 Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (hereinafter
“ANMs”) were held entitled to regularisation of their services from the
dates of their first appointment.
2. W.P.(C) 6128/2017 has been filed by the North Delhi
Municipal Corporation (hereinafter “NDMC”) against all 23 ANMs,
being respondent nos. 1 to 23, and the Govt. of NCT of Delhi , being
respondent no. 24.
W.P.(C) 3276/2018 has been filed by the East Delhi Municipal
Corporation (hereinafter “EDMC”) against 3 of those ANMs, namely
Smt. Jolly Joseph , Smt. Ranjana Mitra , and Smt. Nitu , being
respondent nos. 1 to 3, and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, District
East/North East, being respondent no. 4.
3. For convenience, NDMC and EDMC are collectively referred to
as “the petitioners”, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as it stood
before its trifurcation in 2012 is referred to as “the erstwhile MCD”,
and the 23 ANMs are referred to as “the workwomen”.
4. NDMC‟s petition was listed for the first time on 21.07.2017,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 2 of 23

when this Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against
the petitioner. On 09.04.2018, it was clarified that the said interim
order relates to NDMC alone and not to any other municipal
corporation. EDMC filed its petition on 21.03.2018, and vide order
dated 25.04.2018, the two petitions were directed to be listed together.
5. Upon the unification of the three municipal corporations of
Delhi w.e.f. 22.05.2022, both petitions are being prosecuted by the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter “MCD”).
6. During the pendency of these petitions, the Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board (hereinafter “DSSSB”) advertised posts of
ANM in MCD on 05.03.2024. The workwomen sought a stay of the
advertisement. In reply, MCD filed an affidavit of its Additional
Deputy Commissioner (Health) in May 2024, stating that there were
288 vacant posts of ANM, of which only 144 had been sent to the
DSSSB for recruitment, and the remaining 144 had been held back on
account of the pending litigations.
7. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that the workwomen were
engaged as ANMs in the Health Department of the erstwhile MCD on
contractual basis, 16 of them between August and October 2001 and
the remaining 7 between September 2005 and December 2008. Their
engagements were for a period of 6 months at a time on a consolidated
monthly remuneration, with the engagement letters stating that they
would continue till the posts were filled on a regular basis. The
engagements were renewed from time to time. The later agreements,
such as the one executed with Smt. Vandana , engaged them for a fixed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 3 of 23

period or till the list of selected candidates for the post of ANM was
received from the DSSSB, whichever was earlier.
8. On 19.11.2010, the workwomen, through the Hospital
Employees‟ Union, served a demand notice seeking regularisation.
Conciliation proceedings were initiated but failed, and vide order dated
19.12.2011, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi referred the dispute to the
Industrial Tribunal, the question being whether the workwomen were
entitled to be regularised as ANMs from their initial dates of joining in
the pay scale of Rs.5,200-20,200/-.
9. During the pendency of the reference, the erstwhile MCD was
trifurcated in 2012. Out of the 23 workwomen, 13 came to work with
NDMC, 3 with EDMC, and 7 with the South Delhi Municipal

Corporation.
Notably, the South Delhi Municipal Corporation has not
challenged the impugned award and the award, insofar as it pertains to
the 7 workwomen, stands implemented.
10. In their statement of claim, the workwomen had pleaded that
they were appointed after the vacancies were advertised and a
selection by a duly constituted board; that they fulfilled the
Recruitment Rules for the post; that they had been working
continuously against sanctioned vacant posts; and that they were being
paid less than what their regular counterparts received for the same
work. They contended that keeping them on contractual basis for years
amounted to an unfair labour practice.
11. The erstwhile MCD contested the claim and raised objections to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 4 of 23

its maintainability. On merits, it pleaded that the Recruitment Rules
required the post of ANM to be filled through a test conducted by the
DSSSB, and that the workwomen had been engaged on contract only
until such recruitment was made. It further pleaded that it had no
policy for regularising contractual employees, its regularisation policy
being meant only for daily wage workers.
12. The workwomen examined themselves as WW-1 to WW-23.
The management examined three witnesses, namely Sh. C. V.
Adyalkar , Administrative Officer (Health) (MW-1), Sh. Louis Daniel ,
Administrative Officer (Health) (MW-2), and Dr. Devender Kumar
Seth , Director, Hospital Administration, NDMC (MW-3).

13. In the impugned award, the Tribunal relied heavily upon the
admissions made by MW-2 and MW-3 in their cross-examination. It
found that the workwomen had been appointed through advertisement
and selection by a duly constituted board; that they fulfilled the
Recruitment Rules; that they had been working continuously against
sanctioned vacant posts for periods ranging from 10 to about 16 years;
and that the management had not proved even a single appointment
letter issued to any candidate selected through the DSSSB. It held that
continuing the workwomen on contractual basis amounted to an unfair
labour practice under Item 10 of the Fifth Schedule to the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the “ID Act”), and that the
workwomen were, in any event, covered by the exception carved out
1
in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi . Accordingly, the

1
(2006) 4 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 5 of 23

Tribunal held that the workwomen had made out a case for
regularisation of their services on the post of ANM w.e.f. the dates of
their first appointment, as set out in Annexure A to the order of
reference and in their statement of claim, in the pay scale of Rs.5,200-
20,200/- with all benefits, and answered the reference accordingly.
14. A few days before the impugned award was passed, NDMC,
vide office order dated 27.04.2017, dispensed with the services of the
workwomen working with it. Vide office order dated 26.05.2017, they
were re-engaged for a period of 6 months, and thereafter they were
again disengaged.
15. As regards EDMC, after the impugned award was passed, its 3
workwomen moved applications under Section 33-C(1) of the ID Act
before the Deputy Labour Commissioner. EDMC‟s representative
appeared but filed no reply, and on 19.06.2017 the Deputy Labour
Commissioner directed issuance of recovery certificates. Upon EDMC
failing to deposit the amounts despite notice dated 29.06.2017 issued
by the office of the Assistant Collector Grade-II, District Shahdara , its
bank account was attached on 24.07.2017 and the award amounts were
paid to the 3 workwomen. EDMC then issued show cause notices
dated 29.08.2017 and 06.09.2017 to them, and vide office order dated
23.10.2017 directed as under:
“ The Competent Authority of EDMC has ordered
withholding further engagement on contract basis beyond
30.09.2017 of three ANM’s viz Smt. Jolly Joseph, Smt. Nitu & Smt.
Ranjana Mitra till they deposit the entire amount attached in
Municipal Treasury. ”

16. The 3 workwomen raised a claim against the said office order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 6 of 23

before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, on which notice dated
07.12.2017 was issued to EDMC. The claim was withdrawn on
16.03.2018. In its petition, EDMC has sought the setting aside of the
impugned award, a refund of the amounts recovered from it, and the
quashing of the proceedings before the Deputy Labour Commissioner,
including the notice dated 07.12.2017.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the
impugned award, contends that the workwomen were engaged purely
on contractual basis for fixed periods or till regular recruitment was
made through the DSSSB, and having accepted those terms, they
cannot claim regularisation. It is contended that under the Recruitment
Rules, the post of ANM is a direct recruitment post, and regular
recruitment is made by the DSSSB on the requisition of the
management after a written examination. Reliance is placed on Section
92A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 to contend that
direct recruitment to category „B‟ and category „C‟ posts is to be made
by the Government through the agency prescribed by it, which is the
DSSSB.
It is further contended that there is no policy for regularisation
of contractual employees, and in the absence of such a policy,
regularisation cannot be directed. Relying on Umadevi ( supra ),
learned counsel contends that public employment must be through
open competition and that the impugned award permits a back-door
entry. It is also contended that the workwomen were given an
opportunity to appear in the examination held in 2007 and failed to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 7 of 23

qualify, and the demand notice raised in 2010 was an attempt to
overcome that failure. Learned counsel further contends that the
answer of MW-2 to the effect that the management had blatantly
indulged in unfair labour practice is a typographical error and cannot
be treated as an admission.
Learned counsel also contends that regularisation with
retrospective effect would disturb the seniority of persons directly
recruited through the DSSSB, and in this regard, points out that the
operation of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MCD
2
Vs. Pradeep Rana , which upheld a similar direction, was stayed by
the Supreme Court on 14.02.2025.
It is additionally contended with respect to EDMC that the
impugned award was published on 28/29.06.2017 and though under
Section 17 of the ID Act, became enforceable only thereafter, the
recovery certificates were issued and the amounts recovered from
EDMC. It is contended that the amounts so recovered must be
refunded, and that the proceedings before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, including the notice dated 07.12.2017, ought to be
quashed.
18. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that
none of the grounds urged by the petitioners shows the impugned
award to be without jurisdiction, perverse, or in violation of the
principles of natural justice, and therefore no interference is called for
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the

2
LPA 720/2024, decided on 14.08.2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 8 of 23

Tribunal has returned findings of fact on the basis of admissions made
by the management‟s own witnesses, namely that the workwomen
were appointed after advertisement and through selection, that they
fulfil the Recruitment Rules, and that they have been working against
sanctioned vacant posts for years.
Learned counsel further submits that Umadevi ( supra ) does not
curtail the power of an Industrial Tribunal to direct regularisation upon
finding an unfair labour practice, and in support relies upon the
3
decisions in Delhi Administration Vs. Yogender Singh , Project
4
Director, Department of Rural Development Vs. Its Workmen , and
5
Amrish Kumar Vs. Indian Institute of Mass Communication ,
submitting that the special leave petitions against the latter two
decisions have been dismissed. He also relies upon the decision of a
6
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Nisha ,
which upheld an award regularising ANMs working with the Govt. of
NCT of Delhi . He submits that the said decision was affirmed by the
Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Supreme Court.
Reliance is also placed on another decision by a Coordinate Bench of
7
this Court in MCD Vs. Kishni .
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have
themselves admitted the existence of 288 vacant posts of ANM, so the
impugned award can be implemented without creating any new post.

3
1996 SCC OnLine Del 849
4
2019 SCC OnLine Del 7796
5
2020 SCC OnLine Del 1915
6
W.P.(C) 15950/2023, decided on 12.12.2023
7
2024 SCC OnLine Del 690
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 9 of 23

Lastly, it is submitted that the amounts recovered from EDMC were
paid to the 3 workwomen in proceedings under Section 33-C(1) of the
ID Act in which EDMC participated, and they are dues under an award
which has never been stayed qua EDMC.
19. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone
through the record.
20. At the outset, this Court takes note of the limited scope of
interference with an award of an Industrial Tribunal under Article 226
8
of the Constitution of India. In Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan ,
the Supreme Court explained that the Writ Court exercises a
supervisory and not an appellate jurisdiction, and held as under:
“ 7. … There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction
to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and
the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate
Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact
reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the
appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in
writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the
face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error
of fact, however grave it may appear to be. … ”

21. Now, Section 2(ra) of the ID Act defines “unfair labour
practice” as any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule to the
ID Act, and Section 25T of the ID Act prohibits employers from
committing such unfair labour practices. Significantly, Item 10 of Part
I of the Fifth Schedule reads as under:
“ 10. To employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or
temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the
object of depriving them of the status and privileges of

8
AIR 1964 SC 477
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 10 of 23

permanent workmen. ”

22. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed a great
deal of reliance on the decision in Umadevi ( supra ) to deny relief of
regularisation, a gainful reference can be made to the subsequent
9
decision in Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand , wherein, while
agreeing with the appellants and taking note of Umadevi ( supra ), the
Supreme Court deprecated the practice of employers continuing with
ad hocism and further observed as under:
“ Limits on Perpetual Contractual Engagements:
13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had engaged
the services of the appellants on sanctioned posts since the year
2012. It was only towards the end of the year 2022 that the
respondents communicated that no further extension of the
appellants’ engagement was likely to be granted.
13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is not
only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear derogation of the
equality principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The
respondent-State initially engaged the appellants in their youth to
discharge public duties and functions. Having rendered long and
dedicated service, the appellants cannot now be left to fend for
themselves, particularly when the employment opportunities that
may have been available to them a decade ago are no longer
accessible owing to age constraints.
13.4. We are unable to discern any rational basis for the
respondent-State’s decision to discontinue the appellants after
nearly ten years of continuous service. We are conscious that the
symbiotic-relationship between the appellants and the respondent-
State was mutually beneficial, the State derived the advantage of
the appellants’ experience and institutional familiarity, while the
appellants remained in public service. In such circumstances, any
departure from a long-standing practice of renewal, particularly
one that frustrates the legitimate expectation of the employees,
ought to be supported by cogent reasons recorded in a speaking
order.
13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and

9
2026 SCC OnLine SC 129
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 11 of 23

reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his
duties over several years and has been granted repeated extensions
cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are
unable to accept the justification advanced by the respondents as
the obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair
treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their
engagement is contractual or regular.
13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the
practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the
nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in
perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their
positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, this Court underscored that
government-departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and
stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the
duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the
day-to-day functioning of the organization.
13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam and Vinod Kumar v. Union
of India, this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind
reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary
employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that
Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise
exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking
regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself
draws a distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and
those that are merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to
regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this Court strongly
deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their
capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of
outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade
regular employment obligations, observing that such measures
perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair
and lawful engagement practices.
13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time
employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the
edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to
function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form
essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our
Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated
in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the
State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and
contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason.
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to
persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State’s contention that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 12 of 23

the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants’ engagement
denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having
availed of the appellants’ services on sanctioned posts for over a
decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having
consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot,
in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly
discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal
contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary,
inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model
employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the
Constitution.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs,
we summarize our conclusions as follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the
appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a
decade under the nomenclature of contractual
engagement and thereafter denying them consideration
for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing
engagement solely on the basis of contractual
nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons
or passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for
regularization cannot override constitutional
guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not
amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and
contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary
State action from constitutional scrutiny.
IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on
contractual labels or mechanical application of
Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to
discard long-serving employees in a manner
inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional
governance.
V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the
respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of
all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which
they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be
entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing
from the date of this judgment.”

Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 13 of 23

23. Coming to the facts of the present case, the work of an ANM is
perennial in nature. The workwomen were engaged directly by the
erstwhile MCD and they have continued to perform the same work as
ANMs for well over a decade. The question before the Tribunal was
whether they were kept on contractual basis for years with the object
of depriving them of the status of regular employees. In this regard,
the Tribunal placed reliance upon the deposition of management‟s own
witnesses.
24. MW-2/ Sh. Louis Daniel , in his cross-examination, stated as
under:
“ The above mentioned 23 workmen fulfill Recuitment
Rules for the post of Auxilliary Nurse Midwife. … It is correct
that before appointment of the workmen an advertisement was
given in newspaper for the post of ANM. It is correct that in
response to the advertisement the concerned workmen and
others applied for the job of ANMs. … It is correct that
concerned workmen are working against sanctioned vacant
post of ANM since their appointment. … It is correct that in
Recruitment Rules no where mentioned that selection process
of the workmen will be conducted by DSSSB. ”

25. MW-3/Dr. Devender Kumar Seth , in his cross-examination,
stated as under:
“ It is correct that it is not mentioned the Rrs of the of
the post of ANM Ex. MW 1/80 that the recruitment would be
through DSSSB. Vol. DSSSB did not exist at the time when the
RRs were notified. No amendment has been made in the RRs
for the post of ANM after coming into existence of DSSSB. ... It
is correct that at the time of appointment of the workmen, post
was advertised and the selection board duly appointed them on
the post of ANM. Vol. On contract basis. ”

26. These admissions establish that the workwomen were selected
after a public advertisement by a selection board constituted by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 14 of 23

management, they held the qualifications prescribed by the
Recruitment Rules, and they were placed against sanctioned vacant
posts. Learned counsel for the petitioners has sought to explain away
one answer of MW-2 as a typographical error. Even if that answer is
kept aside, the admissions extracted above remain, and they are
sufficient to hold that the workwomen were not back-door entrants.
27. As noted hereinabove, the written statement raised only two
pleas on merits, namely that recruitment could only be through the
DSSSB, and that there was no policy of regularisation.
28. As regards the first plea, the Recruitment Rules for the post of
ANM, by the admission of both MW-2 and MW-3, do not provide for
recruitment through the DSSSB.
29. Reliance by the petitioners on Section 92A of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is also misplaced. The said provision
reads as under:
“ 92A. Recruitment to category B and category C posts.
The direct recruitment to category B and category C posts may
be made by the Government through such agencies as may be
prescribed by it. ”

Section 92A is an enabling provision which permits the
Government to make direct recruitment through a prescribed agency.
It does not render unlawful an appointment made by the municipal
body through an advertisement and a selection board, where the
Recruitment Rules for the subject post say nothing about the DSSSB.
30. The conduct of the management further belies this plea. The
workwomen‟s contracts were to last till candidates selected through
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 15 of 23

the DSSSB became available. The DSSSB did recommend candidates
for the post of ANM vide its result notice dated 13.08.2008, and a
further requisition was sent in the year 2012. Yet the workwomen
continued to be engaged and contracts were renewed for years
thereafter, and as noted in the impugned award, the management did
not prove before the Industrial Tribunal a single appointment letter
issued to any candidate selected through the DSSSB. Further, in his
affidavit, MW-2 himself stated that no recruitment had been made by
the DSSSB against the requisition of 2012.
31. In any event, as noted above, MCD has itself stated on affidavit
that out of the 288 vacant posts of ANM, 144 have been held back on
account of the pending litigations. The present petitions are confined
to only 16 workwomen, 13 in W.P.(C) 6128/2017 and 3 in W.P.(C)
3276/2018 .
32. As regards the second plea, the power of an Industrial Tribunal
to direct regularisation upon finding an unfair labour practice does not
depend upon the existence of a regularisation policy. In Yogender
Singh ( supra ), the award of the Industrial Tribunal regularising daily
paid workers from the date of their initial appointment was assailed on
similar grounds, namely that the Recruitment Rules had not been
followed and that regularisation could only be under a scheme. A
Coordinate Bench of this Court, while dismissing the said writ
petition, held as under:
“ 44. Besides the factual position distinguishing the
case in hand from the cases cited above, it needs also to be
kept in view that the Industrial Tribunal is not bound by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 16 of 23

rigid rules of law. The process which an Industrial Tribunal
employs in coming to a decision is not a judicial process. It
may confer rights and privileges on either party which it
considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be
within the terms of any existing document. It may even create
new rights and obligations which it may consider essential for
keeping industrial peace. (See Bharat Bank, Ltd. 1950 LLJ
921). It is for this reason that it is said that the Award of the
Tribunal may contain provisions for settlement of a dispute
which no court could order if it was bound by ordinary law,
but the Tribunal is not fettered in any way by these limitations.
[See Western Indian Automobile Association v. Industrial
Tribunal 1949 LLJ 245]. It may also be remembered that if
found to be warranted by the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Industrial Tribunal may even grant relief from a date
anterior to the date on which the dispute is raised (See: Sarva
Shramik Sangh v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC
386 at page 391). This, then, is the power of the Industrial
Tribunal.
45. In the case before me the Industrial Tribunal had
the jurisdiction. What has been decided falls within its
jurisdiction, and not outside it. Add to it the fact that the
Award suffers not even from an error in the exercise of
jurisdiction. Why should, then, I interfere? ”

33. Disputes such as the present one, wherein contractual
employees of public employers, including the Govt. of NCT of Delhi
and the municipal corporations, have sought regularisation on the
ground of unfair labour practice, have repeatedly come before this
Court. The awards directing regularisation in such cases have
consistently been upheld.
34. In Project Director ( supra ), this Court took note of the decision
in Umadevi ( supra ). In that case too, the workmen had not been
recruited through any regular process. Their names were forwarded by
the Rajya Sainik Board , they were interviewed by a selection
committee constituted by the department, and they were appointed as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 17 of 23

caretakers on contract, with their engagements being extended from
time to time. The Industrial Tribunal directed their regularisation, and
this Court, while upholding the award, held as under:
“ 27. In my view, the rigors applicable for grant of
regularization in cases of public employment cannot be read in
such a manner so as to take away the wide powers of an
Industrial Tribunal under the ID Act. It needs no reiteration
that the basic tenets of service law are very different from
those of labour law and, therefore, the safeguards put in place
to protect the interests of workmen cannot be conflated with
the service rules and regulations applicable to government
employees in the public sector. Both of them stand on a
different footing and can neither be tested on the same
touchstone nor enforced in the same manner. Therefore, I am
of the opinion that neither the decision in Uma Devi (supra)
nor in Anil Lamba (supra) has any application to the facts of
the present case. Even otherwise, a perusal of the decision in
Uma Devi (supra) shows that with respect to the
regularization of temporary employees, the Supreme Court
itself had specifically carved out an exception for those
contractual employees who, though appointed irregularly, had
completed at least 10 years of service. In the facts of the
present case, the respondents/workmen have as on date
completed more than twenty-two years of service and,
therefore, even as per the decision in Uma Devi (supra), they
would be entitled to the regularization of their services.
…
29. … In my opinion, once the Tribunal was of the view
that the petitioner was indulging in unfair labour practice, it
was well within its domain to pass an order directing the
petitioner to regularize the respondents’ services. … ”

The special leave petition preferred against the said decision,
bearing SLP (C) Diary No. 34164/2019 , was dismissed by the
Supreme Court vide order dated 14.10.2019.
35. The case of the present workwomen stands on an even stronger
footing. In Project Director ( supra ), the Govt. of NCT of Delhi had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 18 of 23

contended that no post of caretaker had ever been sanctioned. After the
special leave petition against that decision was dismissed, the Revenue
Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi , vide order dated 24.11.2020,
which has been placed on record by the respondents, created 32
supernumerary posts of caretakers to regularise the caretakers in
compliance with that decision. Even where no posts were available,
the decision was implemented by creating posts. In the present case,
the workwomen have been working against sanctioned vacant posts
since their appointment, as admitted by MW-2, and no post needs to
be created to give effect to the impugned award.
36. As regards the date from which regularisation has been granted,
in Amrish Kumar ( supra ), this Court, after taking note of Project
Director ( supra ), directed regularisation of casual workers of a
Government institute from their initial date of joining, observing as
under:
“ 7. The facts of the instant case as discussed
hereinabove clearly show that keeping the workmen in
uninterrupted service for 23 years as casual workmen and
denying them the status and privilege of permanent workmen,
constitutes unfair labour practice which is illegal and needs to
be quashed. … That being the position i.e. they had worked for
almost 23 years; the employer was same; they had been
working against the sanctioned posts; they were not
considered as regular employees, therefore, the treatment
meted out to them constitutes unfair labour practice. In the
circumstances, their services too shall be regularized from
initial date of joining, with all consequential benefits. ”

The special leave petition preferred against the said decision,
bearing SLP (C) No. 710/2021 , was dismissed by the Supreme Court
vide order dated 10.12.2021.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 19 of 23

37. The issue of regularisation of ANMs specifically arose in Nisha
( supra ). ANMs engaged on contractual basis since 2000-2001 at
various Maternity and Child Welfare Centres and dispensaries of the
Govt. of NCT of Delhi had raised an industrial dispute seeking
regularisation and salary in the regular pay scale. The management had
contended, inter alia , that their engagement was purely contractual
under a project and that they were not entitled to the benefits of regular
employees. The Industrial Tribunal allowed the claim, and the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, relying upon Project Director ( supra ),
dismissed the writ petition filed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi . The
Letters Patent Appeal filed against the same, bearing LPA No.
530/2024 , was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide
decision dated 25.07.2024. The special leave petition against the said
decision, bearing SLP (C) Diary No. 57566/2024 , also came to be
dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.02.2025.
38. Challenges by MCD itself to awards of regularisation have met
the same fate. In Kishni ( supra ), the Industrial Tribunal had directed
regularisation of a Safai Karamchari engaged by MCD as a part-time
worker. MCD assailed the award, contending, inter alia , that no
direction for regularisation could be issued de hors its policy. A
Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition.
39. Most recently, in Pradeep Rana ( supra ), the Industrial Tribunal
had directed regularisation of contractual Assistant Malaria Inspectors
of MCD from their initial dates of joining. The writ petition filed by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 20 of 23

10
MCD was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court . In its
Letters Patent Appeal against the said decision, MCD raised
contentions akin to those raised in the present case: that the workmen
had not undertaken the examination conducted by the DSSSB, that
their regularisation would lead to seniority disputes with direct recruits
and cause financial burden, and that the award was contrary to
Umadevi ( supra ) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs. Krishan
11
Gopal . Rejecting these contentions, the Division Bench held as
under:
“ 12. As mentioned above, present is not a case where
the employees have approached this court through writ action,
seeking regularization of their services. The respondents
herein, being workmen, raised industrial dispute on the
allegation that the appellant had been indulged in unfair
labour practice by keeping the respondents in job on
temporary basis since the year 2010 and the industrial
adjudicator on the basis of evidence adduced during trial
arrived at a finding in that regard against the appellant. There
is no dispute that the engagement of the respondents in the
year 2010 was against sanctioned posts. Also admittedly, the
respondents were engaged as contractual workers through a
selection process pursuant to an advertisement, so it is not a
case where the respondents were engaged surreptitiously,
thereby depriving the members of general public, willing to
compete. It also cannot be denied that the job of Malaria
control and public health issues are perennial in nature and
requirement to man those posts of Assistant Malaria Inspector
continues till date. It is also nobody’s case that the
respondents do not possess the requisite qualifications for the
job in question.
…
14. We are of the considered view that once the learned
Industrial Tribunal arrived at a finding that the appellant was

10
W.P.(C) 3339/2024, decided along with W.P.(C) 8391/2020 and connected matters on
31.05.2024
11
(2021) 18 SCC 707
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 21 of 23

indulging in unfair labour practice, the Tribunal was
completely justified in directing the appellant to regularize the
respondents and in that regard, the appellant has failed to
show any reason for us to interfere with the discretion
exercised by the learned Tribunal. ”

40. Although learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that
the special leave petition against the decision in Pradeep Rana ( supra )
is pending before the Supreme Court, keeping in view that the
decisions of this Court in respect of similarly situated workmen have
been upheld, and the special leave petitions against several of them
have been dismissed, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
impugned award.
41. Even otherwise, the plea that the workwomen took and failed an
examination in 2007 is a matter of fact which was for the Tribunal to
weigh, and in any case, MW-2 stated that he did not know anything
about the selection board of May 2007. As for the plea that
retrospective regularisation would disturb the seniority of persons
directly recruited through the DSSSB, no such plea was raised before
the Tribunal, and no such direct recruit is before this Court.
42. This leaves the separate prayers of EDMC. EDMC has objected
that the recovery certificates were issued before the impugned award
became enforceable. However, EDMC participated in the proceedings
under Section 33-C(1) of the ID Act without filing any reply, and the
amounts recovered from it were paid to its 3 workwomen as dues
under the impugned award, which now stands upheld. As noted above,
the interim order dated 21.07.2017 was confined to NDMC, and
EDMC did not obtain any interim order in its own petition. EDMC is,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 22 of 23

therefore, not entitled to a refund. As regards the notice dated
07.12.2017, the claim on which it was issued was withdrawn on
16.03.2018, before EDMC filed its petition, and nothing survives for
adjudication on that prayer.
43. In view of the foregoing, the impugned award is upheld, and
both writ petitions are dismissed.
44. The pending applications are also disposed of in the above
terms.


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 30, 2026
nb
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
22:28:06
W.P.(C) Nos. 6128/2017 & 3276/2018 Page 23 of 23