Delhi HC Upholds Regularisation Of 16 Contract ANMs From First Appointment After Years Working Against Sanctioned Posts

Twenty-three Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANMs) were engaged by the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi on renewable contracts between 2001 and 2008.

They sought regularisation, alleging that they had been selected following advertisement, possessed the prescribed qualifications, and had worked continuously against sanctioned posts.

The Industrial Tribunal found that their prolonged contractual engagement constituted an unfair labour practice and directed regularisation from their respective initial appointment dates.

North Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal Corporation challenged the award under Article 226; seven other ANMs employed by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation were not the subject of these petitions.

Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines an “unfair labour practice” by reference to the Fifth Schedule; Section 25T prohibits employers from committing such practices.

Item 10 of Part I of the Fifth Schedule identifies as an unfair labour practice employing workers as casuals or temporaries and continuing them as such for years to deprive them of permanent status.

Under Article 226, review of an Industrial Tribunal’s award is supervisory, not appellate; factual findings based on evidence are not ordinarily reopened absent an apparent error of law or jurisdictional defect.

Section 92A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 permits direct recruitment to category B and C posts through a Government-prescribed agency, but does not invalidate recruitment through another process where the applicable Recruitment Rules do not prescribe that agency.

The Court relied on Umadevi and subsequent authorities, including Yogender Singh, Project Director, Amrish Kumar, Nisha, and Pradeep Rana, for the propositions that an Industrial Tribunal may direct regularisation upon finding unfair labour practice, and that Umadevi does not mechanically bar such relief in an industrial dispute.

The Tribunal’s findings were supported by management witnesses’ admissions that the ANMs had been selected following public advertisement, met the Recruitment Rules, and worked against sanctioned vacant posts; the Rules did not require recruitment through DSSSB.

The corporations had continued renewing the contracts despite DSSSB recruitment activity and failed to prove appointment of any DSSSB-selected candidate to the relevant posts, supporting the finding that the ANMs were not back-door entrants and had been kept contractual for years.

Given the perennial nature of ANM work and the prolonged service, the Tribunal could treat the conduct as an unfair labour practice and order regularisation; the existence of a regularisation policy was not a precondition.

The Court found no basis for Article 226 interference with the award.

EDMC had participated in the Section 33-C(1) proceedings, obtained no stay, and the recovered amounts had been paid under an award that the Court upheld; the separate claim underlying the challenged notice had been withdrawn.

EDMC was denied a refund of the recovered amounts; its challenge to the notice was held to raise no surviving issue because the underlying claim had been withdrawn.

Pending applications were also disposed of.