Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Page 1 of 13
Ex. No. 1914/26
Amit Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
DLCT01-013346-2026
&
Ex. No. 920/24
Rajender Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
CNR No. DLCT01-006752-2024
&
Ex. No. 1258/24
Prakash Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
CNR No. DLCT01-008666-2024
&
Ex. No. 1023/26
Rajesh Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
CNR No. DLCT01-007330-2026
&
Ex. No. 1036/26
Ashok Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
CNR No. DLCT01-007557-2026
&
Ex. No. 1242/26
Subhash Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation
CNR No. DLCT01-008080-2026
&
Ex. No. 1243/26
Sunita Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation
CNR No. DLCT01-007766-2026
&
Ex. No. 1252/26
Suresh Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
CNR No. DLCT01-008513-2026
&
Ex. No. 1569/26
Naresh Bala Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
CNR No. DLCT01-010674-2026
&
-- 1 of 13 --
Page 2 of 13
Ex. No. 1570/26
Shiv Charan Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
CNR No. DLCT01-010692-2026
&
Ex. No. 1595/26
Attar Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
CNR No. DLCT01-010483-2026
&
Ex. No. 1597/26
Ritu Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
CNR No. DLCT01-010471-2026
&
Ex. No. 1598/26
Vinod Kumar vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
CNR No. DLCT01-010453-2026
&
Ex. No. 1636/26
Sita Devi. Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
CNR No. DLCT01-010286-2026
&
Ex. No. 1870/26
Rupesh Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
CNR No. DLCT01-013370-2026
&
Ex. No. 1901/26
Amar Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
CNR No. DLCT01-013669-2026
&
Ex. No. 1907/26
Gajraj Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
CNR No. DLCT01-013636-2026
17.08.2026
Present: Sh. Himanshu Rajora, Ld. Counsel for DH/Sita Devi.
Ms. Monika Nagil, Ld. Proxy Counsel for
DH/Naresh Bala and Shiv Charan.
Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Ld. Proxy Counsel for DH/
Rajender, Prakash, Attar Singh, Ritu and Vinod.
-- 2 of 13 --
Page 3 of 13
Ms. Jyogi Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for DH/Rajesh.
Sh. Mudit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for DH/Amit.
Sh. Juned Ansari, Ld. Counsel for DH/Amar through
VC.
Ms. Shivani Joshi, Ld. Counsel for DH/Ashok Kumar
through VC.
None for Judgment Debtor/MCD.
1. Arguments on maintainability of present executions have
already been heard, written arguments along with case laws have
been filed on behalf of JD also stated to be considered in all
connected matters, as well as by DHs in numerous connected matters
and today matter was fixed for orders.
2. For the sake of convenience, a common order is passed in all
connected execution petitions on point of maintainability before this
Court.
Arguments addressed on behalf of Decree Holder
3. Ld. Counsels for the Decree Holders submitted that the Ld.
Labour Court after considering the claim of the Workman, duly
computed and determined the amount payable to them and passed
the order in their favour and the present proceedings are only for
enforcement of the said determination; that Section 33-C(4) of the
Industrial Disputes Act provides a statutory mechanism for recovery
of the amount determined under Section 33-C(2), hence, the Decree
Holders have a statutory remedy for recovery of the amount
determined by Ld. Labour Court under Section 33-C(2); that Section
11(10) provides for execution before a Civil Court having
-- 3 of 13 --
Page 4 of 13
jurisdiction; that Ld. Labour Court while passing the award in favour
of the Workmen did not restrict the Workmen to any one particular
mode of recovery or execution; that the present petitions are only for
enforcement of the amount already computed and determined by the
Ld. Labour Court; that Section 39 CPC and Section 11(10) of the
Industrial Disputes Act serve the same broad purpose of facilitating
execution before the competent Civil Court.
3.1 To substantiate their arguments, Ld. Counsels for the Decree
Holders have placed reliance upon following case laws.
a. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as
Anand
Finance (P) Ltd. Vs. Amrit Dasarat Kakad reported in
61
(1996) DLT 305, however, the said judgment is on the point of
issue
b. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in E.A. No. 105/2009 in
Ex. No. 242/2008 titled as
Daelim Industrial Co Ltd vs
Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. (Dated 13.03.2009), has observed
that :
“26. The senior counsel for the judgment debtor
also does not dispute that the award would be executable
by this court by attachment of the properties/monies of
the judgment debtor at Delhi. However, he insists upon
the same being done only after obtaining a transfer of the
decree from the courts at Guwahati /Golaghat to this
court. But what will that court transfer. There is no
decree of that court which it can transfer. The court after
disposing of application/petition under Section 34 is not
required to and does not pass any decree in terms of the
award, as under the 1940 Act. Moreover, the question of
-- 4 of 13 --
Page 5 of 13
such transfer would arise only if it were to be held that
the power to execute and transfer is of that court only.
Such power as aforesaid is only in relation to decrees
passed by that court and no in relation to the arbitral
awards which are deemed to be decree for the purpose
of enforcement/execution. Without the fetter of Section
38, the courts of the place where the property/money
against which the decree is sought to be enforced is
situated would have inherent jurisdiction to entertain the
execution.”
c. Ld. Additional District Judge, West District, Tis Hazari
Court, New Delhi in Execution Petition No. 12/14/13 titled as
Dhruv Raj Vs. M/s. Tagore Sr. Sec. School (Dated
04.08.2014). (The same cannot be relied as of Coordinate
Bench)
d. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 7668/2012
titled as
Ranjit Kumar Vs. The Management of M/s.
Datamation Consultants and Anr. (Dated 08.05.2013), has
held that :
“12. xxxxx However, I may note that the scope of
the execution proceedings under section 11(10) of the
Act is much wider, as it relates to execution of an Award
wherein varied kinds of reliefs may have been granted
such as reinstatement, promotion, etc. However,
section 33C(1) can be invoked where the Award grants
any monetary relief to the applicant. Therefore, in such
like cases, the jurisdiction under section 11(10) of the
Civil Court and under section 33C(1) of the Act of the
appropriate government/Labour Commissioner is
concurrent.”
-- 5 of 13 --
Page 6 of 13
e. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) W.P.
4509/2014 titled as
Nandlal Vs. Shri Chandrakant (Dated
21.06.2018), has held that :
“9. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner argues
that if such proceeding was firstly filed before the
Labour Court he would have got an opportunity to take
an objection to the entitlement of the respondent to
receive any money from this petitioner. In fact, such an
objection was already taken by the petitioner before the
Labour Court in an application filed under Section 33-
C(2) of the I. D. Act by the respondent. The objection of
the petitioner was also adjudicated upon by the Labour
and so it is obvious that the submission is bereft of any
substance. In any case, I must say, there is no provision
made under the I.D. Act that if any application for
execution of award is filed before the Labour Court, an
objection can be taken by the judgment-debtor and
only after adjudication of such an objection, the Labour
Court could transmit the award for its execution to the
Civil Court under Section 11(10) of the I. D. Act.
Therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner has to be rejected and is rejected
accordingly.”
Arguments addressed on behalf of Judgment Debtor
4. Ld. Counsel for the Judgment Debtor though did not dispute
the decreetal amount and outstanding payable to Decree Holders,
however, argued that the present execution petition is premature and
not maintainable before this Court without establishing that the said
award/order has been transmitted to this Court by the concerned Ld.
Labour Court in accordance with Section 11(10) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947; that the Award holder has merely filed a certified
copy /photocopy of the Award and no order of transmission,
-- 6 of 13 --
Page 7 of 13
transmission certificate or transmitted record or communication from
the concerned Ld. Labour Court, has been placed on record.
4.1 To buttress his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Decree Holder
has placed reliance upon judgment rendered by Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in W.P. (C) 6155/2022 titled as
Shri Sri Chand & Anr. Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Dated 30.09.2014), has held that :
3. xxxxxxx The Labour Court or Tribunal or National
Tribunal, as the case may be, shall transmit any award, order or
settlement to a civil court having jurisdiction and such civil court
shall execute the award, order or settlement as if it were a decree
passed by it. In view of above explained position/changed	‟
procedure of implementation/ enforcement of awards of Labour
Courts/Industrial Tribunals, now, it is the responsibility of the
same Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal who has pronounced the
award to implement the same after publication of the award by
the Labour Department.
xxxxxx
7. A similar issue came before the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in WP(C) 5648/2011 which has been disposed of vide
order dated 22.05.2012 whereby held as under:-
"10. Record produced before us does not suggest that
provisions of sub-sections (9) and (10) to Section 11 of
the 1947 Act are in derogation or suppression of existing
provisions made under Sections 15, 17, 17-A, 29 and 33-C
of the 1947 Act, therefore, Labour Court or Tribunal shall
prepare the award in duplicate and shall transmit the award
to the civil Court as well as to the appropriate Government
for publication in accordance with Sections 15 and 17 of the
1947 Act so that workman can exercise his option either to
approach the civil Court for its execution under Section 11
or to approach the authority under Sections 29 or 33-C of
the 1947 Act.
-- 7 of 13 --
Page 8 of 13
Court’s Observation
5. This Court heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of
both the parties and perused the entire material available on record
including written arguments filed on behalf of the parties.
6. The present execution petitions have been filed for execution
of the Award passed by the Ld. Labour Court. This Court deems it
appropriate to reproduce relevant sections of Industrial Disputes Act,
which reads as under :
“Section 11(9) - Every award made, order issued or settlement
arrived at by or before the Labour Court or Tribunal or National
Tribunal shall be executed in accxrdance with the procedure laid
down for execution of orders and decree of a Civil Court under
Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
Section 11(10) - The Labour Court or Tribunal or National
Tribunal, as the case may be, shall transmit any award, order or
settlement to a Civil Court having jurisdiction and such Civil
Court shall execute the award, order or settlement as if it were a
decree passed by it."
7. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions makes the
legislative intention manifest. The Legislature has consciously
provided a mechanism whereby an award passed by a Labour Court
is capable of being enforced through the machinery of execution
available to a Civil Court. The object is plainly to ensure that an
adjudication in favour of a workman does not remain merely a paper
determination but is capable of being translated into actual relief.
-- 8 of 13 --
Page 9 of 13
8. The Industrial Disputes Act is a piece of social welfare
legislation enacted,
inter alia, for securing industrial peace and
protecting the legitimate rights of workmen. The provisions relating
to enforcement of an award must, therefore, receive a purposive and
pragmatic interpretation so as to advance the object of the legislation
rather than defeat the substantive right of a workman on account of a
procedural omission.
9. It is significant that the present petitions are not founded
upon an unadjudicated claim. The liability of the Judgment Debtor
has already been adjudicated upon and the amount payable to the
Workman stands determined by the competent Labour Court. The
Judgment Debtor has also not disputed, as recorded during the course
of arguments, the decreetal amount or the fact that the amount is
outstanding.
10. The objection of the Judgment Debtor is thus confined to the
manner in which the award has reached this Court. Such an objection,
in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be permitted to defeat
the substantive right already crystallised in favour of the Workman.
11. The distinction between a substantive condition affecting
jurisdiction and a procedural requirement intended to facilitate
execution is material. Section 11(10) prescribes the manner in which
the award is to be transmitted to the Civil Court having jurisdiction.
It does not declare the award void or unenforceable in the event of
-- 9 of 13 --
Page 10 of 13
absence of a formal transmission certificate accompanying the
execution petition.
12. The same approach is also consistent with the legislative
scheme noticed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
Shri Sri Chand
& Anr. (Supra) wherein it was held that insertion of sub-sections (9)
and (10) in Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act was in addition
to, and not in derogation of, the existing machinery for enforcement
of awards under the Act. The further relevant part of the judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“6. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a welfare
legislation. By this Act a cheaper procedure has been
provided for the welfare of the workmen. If the
respondents no.1&2 do not do their duties as prescribed
under section 33(C)(1) of the Act, then the workmen
have to approach the Civil Court for implementation of
the award which will defeat the very purpose of the Act.
Thus, the workmen have to adopt an expensive
procedure by engaging counsels and to attend the court
proceedings.
7. A similar issue came before the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in WP(C) 5648/2011 which has been
disposed of vide order dated 22.05.2012 whereby held
as under:-
"10. Record produced before us does not suggest
that provisions of sub-sections (9) and (10) to
Section 11 of the 1947 Act are in derogation or
suppression of existing provisions made under
Sections 15, 17, 17-A, 29 and 33-C of the 1947 Act,
therefore, Labour Court or Tribunal shall prepare
the award in duplicate and shall transmit the award
to the civil Court as well as to the appropriate
Government for publication in accordance with
Sections 15 and 17 of the 1947 Act so that workman
-- 10 of 13 --
Page 11 of 13
can exercise his option either to approach the civil
Court for its execution under Section 11 or to
approach the authority under Sections 29 or 33-C of
the 1947 Act.
11. In view of the observations made hereinabove,
sub- sections (9) and (10) of Section 11 of the
1947 Act cannot be held to be in derogation or
suppression of any other provision of the 1947 Act
and same are in addition to existing provisions,
therefore, their vires are upheld."
9. Moreover, this opinion was directed by
Additional Labour Commissioner to be circulated to all
District In-charges. Despite, the Labour Department is
waiting for the opinion of this Court in the present
petition. The Industrial Disputes Act is a Central Act.
Moreover, the Union of India had filed reply before the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana in WP(C)
no.5648/2011 whereby specifically stated that newly
added sub-sections (9) & (10) to section 11 of the I.D.
Act, 1947 are not in suppression of existing provisions
contained in section 15,16,17 and 33(C) of the Act rather
sub-sections (9) & (10) to section 11 of the I.D. Act are
in addition to the existing provisions of the Act.
13. The object of Section 11(10), therefore, cannot be construed
as creating an additional technical barrier whereby a workman,
despite having secured an adjudication in his favour, is required to
undergo another round of proceedings merely for the purpose of
obtaining a formal transmission of the very award which he seeks to
execute.
14. Such an interpretation would be particularly incongruous
where the Judgment Debtor does not dispute the award or the amount
-- 11 of 13 --
Page 12 of 13
payable but seeks dismissal of the execution solely on the ground of
non-transmission. It would result in the Workman being relegated to
another proceeding without there being any dispute regarding the
substantive entitlement. Such an approach would frustrate the very
object of the beneficial legislation.
15. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the express
language of Section 11(10). The requirement of transmission cannot
simply be disregarded. However, the appropriate course, in the
interest of substantial justice, is to treat the absence of formal
transmission as a curable procedural defect rather than as a ground
for dismissal of the execution petition.
16. It is also noteworthy that the Legislature has expressly
directed that the award shall be executed as if it were a decree passed
by the Civil Court. The use of such language demonstrates the
legislative intent to facilitate enforcement and to confer upon the
award the efficacy of an executable decree.
17. In the facts of the present case, where the award has been
passed by the competent Labour Court, the monetary liability stands
determined, the amount is not disputed by the Judgment Debtor and
the only objection is the absence of formal transmission, this Court
finds no justification for dismissing the execution petition as not
maintainable. The present execution petition, therefore, need not be
rejected. The certified copy of the award/order is already before this
Court.
-- 12 of 13 --
Page 13 of 13
18. Accordingly, this Court finds that the present execution
petitions are maintainable before this Court.
19. The matter be now listed for further proceedings in execution
on 26.09.2026.
(Shefali Barnala Tandon)
District Judge-04, Central
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
17.08.2026 (gr)
-- 13 of 13 --