{"id":243406,"date":"2002-05-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-05-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002"},"modified":"2016-05-23T05:31:15","modified_gmt":"2016-05-23T00:01:15","slug":"delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002","title":{"rendered":"Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 (95) FLR 758, (2003) ILLJ 1 Del<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  S.B. Sinha, C.J.  <\/p>\n
 1. An application for review of this Court’s Order dated
\n16.04.2002 passed in C.W.P. No. 182 of 1993 has been filed
\nby the applicant herein. The said Order reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
 “Learned counsel for the petitioner
\nrequested for an adjournment. In view of the
\nfact that this is a case of the year 1993 request
\nfor an adjournment is declined.\n<\/p>\n
From a perusal of the prayer in the writ
\npetition, it appears that the writ petition is
\ncovered by the latest Constitution Bench
\njudgment in the case of  Steel Authority of India
\nLtd. and Ors. v. National Union Waterfront
\nWorkers and Ors.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the aforesaid decision of the
\nApex Court, the petitioner may raise industrial
\ndispute.\n<\/p>\n
Writ petition stands dismissed.’  <\/p>\n
 2. The contention of he learned counsel for the applicant is
\nthat in passing the said Order, this Court did not take into
\nconsideration that the security guards were employed on
\n09.12.1983, whereas the Contractor was appointed on
\n01.02.1984 and by reason thereof, there existed a direct
\nrelationship of employee and employer between them and
\nthe principal employer, although they wee shown to be the
\nemployees of the alleged contractor. The said arrangement
\nwas entered into only by way of a camouflage by Steel
\nAuthority of India to escape its liability under various labour
\nlaws enacted for the benefit of the workmen. It has been
\npointed out that after the death of the contractor in the year
\n1989, his wife had been asked to continue as Contractor.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel would further contend that the
\npetitioner made representation in December, 1989 for
\ntheir regularization whereupon interviews were held and
\nselection process was carried out, but no action thereupon
\nhad been taken.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel would further contend that this Court
\nhas also not taken notice of the decision of the Apex Court
\nin  Gujarat Electricity Board Thermal Power Station, Ukai v.
\nHind Mazdoor Sabha and Ors.<\/a> .\n<\/p>\n
3. The applicant herein in the writ petitioner had prayed for
\nthe following reliefs:-\n<\/p>\n
 (1) may please issue writ of mandamus
\ndirecting the respondent No. 3 to implement the
\nNotification bearing No. 423013 (7) \/76LW
\ndated 9th December, 1976 by regularizing all
\nthe 10 Security Guards whose names are
\nmentioned in Annexure ‘A’ to the present writ
\npetition permanently employed in the
\nrespondent No. 2 IRCOn Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
(2) to issue a writ or direction calling upon
\nthe Indian Railways Construction Co. Ltd. i.e.
\nthe respondent No. 2 to fix all the 10 Security
\nGuards whose names are mentioned in
\nAnnexure ‘A’ to the present writ petition in the
\nregular scale of pay applicable as per their
\nservices with effect from the date of their
\njoining and to gave them other consequential
\nbenefits.\n<\/p>\n
 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court
\ndeems fit and proper in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the present case may kindly
\nbe given in favor of the petitioner and against
\nthe respondent Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
4. It is not in dispute that the said notification dated
\n09.12.1976 has been set aside and quashed by the Apex
\nCourt in  Steel Authority (Supra) and, thus, no relief could
\nbe granted so far as prayer (1) is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
The second relief is although sought for grant of a regular
\nscale of pay, such a relief could have been granted only in
\nthe event, the prayer (1) could be granted in favor of the
\npetitioner, namely, a direction to regularize all the 10
\nsecurity guards whose names are mentioned in Annexure ‘A’
\nto the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
 5. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court precisely dealt
\nwith the aforementioned question in  Steel Authority of India
\nLtd. and Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors.  and<\/a>
\nstated the law in the following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
  “107. An analysis of the cases, discussed
\nabove, shows that they fall in three classes: (i)
\nwhere contract labour is engaged in or in
\nconnection with the work of an establishment
\nand employment of contract labour is
\nprohibited either because the industrial
\nadjudicator \/ court ordered abolition of
\ncontract labour or because the appropriate
\nGovernment issued notification under Section
\n10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption
\nof the contract labour working in the
\nestablishment was ordered; (ii) where the
\ncontract was found to be a sham and nominal,
\nrather a camouflage, in which case the contract
\nlabour working in the establishment of the
\nprincipal employer were held, in fact and in
\nreality, the employees of the principal employer
\nhimself. Indeed, such cases do not relate to
\nabolition of contract labour but present
\ninstances wherein the Court pierced the veil
\nand declared the correct position as a fact at
\nthe stage after employment of contract labour
\nstood prohibited; (iii) where in discharge of a
\nstatutory obligation of maintaining a canteen
\nin an establishment the principal employer
\navailed the services of a contractor the courts
\nhave held that the contract labour would
\nindeed be the employees of the principal
\nemployer.”\n<\/p>\n
 It was further held:-\n<\/p>\n
 “(2)(a). A notification under Section 10(1) of the
\nCLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract
\nlabour in any process, operation or other work
\nin any establishment has to be issued by the
\nappropriate Government:-\n<\/p>\n
 (1) after consulting with the Central Advisory
\nBoard or the State Advisory Board, as the case
\nmay be, and  <\/p>\n
(2) having regard to  <\/p>\n
(i) conditions of work and benefits provided for
\nthe contract labour in the establishment in
\nquestion, and  <\/p>\n
 (ii) other relevant factors including those
\nmentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 10;\n<\/p>\n
 (3) Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor
\nany other provision in the Act, whether
\nexpressly or by necessary implication, provides
\nfor automatic absorption of contract labour on
\nissuing a notification by the appropriate
\nGovernment under Sub-section (1) of Section
\n10, prohibiting employment of contract labour,
\nin any process, operation or other work in any
\nestablishment. Consequently the principal
\nemployer cannot be required to order
\nabsorption of the contract labour working in
\nthe establishment concerned.\n<\/p>\n
 (4) We overrule the judgment of this Court in
\n Aur India case Air India Statutory Corporation v.
\nUnion Labour Union,<\/a>  prospectively and declare that
\nany direction issued by any industrial
\nadjudicator\/any court including the High
\nCourt, for absorption of contract labour
\nfollowing the judgment in Air India case shall
\nhold good and that the same shall not be set
\naside, altered or modified on the basis of this
\njudgment in cases where such a direction has
\nbeen given effect to and it has become final.\n<\/p>\n
(5) On issuance of prohibition notification
\nunder Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act
\nprohibiting employment of contract labour or
\notherwise, in an industrial dispute brought
\nbefore it by any contract labour in regard to
\nconditions of service, the industrial adjudicator
\nwill have to consider the question whether the
\ncontractor has been interposed either on the
\nground of having undertaken to produce any
\ngiven result for the establishment or for supply
\nof contract labour for work of the
\nestablishment under a genuine contract or is a
\nmere ruse\/camouflage to evade compliance
\nwith various beneficial legislations so as to
\ndeprive the workers of the benefit there under.
\nIf the contract is found to be not genuine but a
\nmere camouflage, the so-called contract labour
\nwill have to be treated as employees of the
\nprincipal employer who shall be directed to
\nregularize the services of the contract labour in
\nthe establishment concerned subject to the
\nconditions as may be specified by it for that
\npurpose in the light of para 6 hereunder.\n<\/p>\n
(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and
\nprohibition notification under Section 10(1) of
\nthe CLRA Act in respect of the establishment
\nconcerned has been issued by the appropriate
\nGovernment, prohibiting employment of
\ncontract labour in any process, operation or
\nother work of any establishment and where in
\nsuch process, operation or other work of the
\nestablishment the principal employer intends
\nto employ regular workmen, he shall give
\npreference to the erstwhile contract labour, if
\notherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by
\nrelaxing the condition as to maximum age
\nappropriately, taking into consideration the age
\nof the workers at the time of their initial
\nemployment by the contractor and also
\nrelaxing the condition as to academic
\nqualifications other than technical
\nqualifications.\n<\/p>\n
 As regard the meaning of “industrial adjudicator”, it was
\nclarified:-\n<\/p>\n
  “126. We have used the expression “industrial
\nadjudicator” by design as determination of the
\nquestions aforementioned requires enquiry into
\ndisputed questions of facts which cannot
\nconveniently be made by High Courts in
\nexercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution. Therefore, in such cases the
\nappropriate authority to go into those issues
\nwill be the Industrial Tribunal \/ Court whose
\ndetermination will be amenable to judicial
\nreview.\n<\/p>\n
6. In that view of the matter, this Court’s Order dated
\n16.04.2002 squarely comes within the purview of the
\nConstitutional Bench decision in  Steel Authority of India
\nLtd.’s case (Supra).\n<\/p>\n
7. In  Gujarat Electricity Board Thermal Power Station’s case
\n(Supra) has also been noticed in  Steel Authority of India
\nLtd.’s case (supra) and it was noticed that even in  Air India
\nStatutory Corporation v. United Labour Union<\/a> , Justice Majmudar
\nopined:-\n<\/p>\n
  “103 …..Justice Majmudar, in his
\nconcurring judgment, put it on the ground that
\nwhen on the fulfilllment of the requisite
\nconditions, the contract labour is abolished
\nunder Section 10(1), the intermediary
\ncontractor vanishes and along with him
\nvanishes the term “principal employer” and
\nonce the intermediary contractor goes the term
\n“principal” also goes with it; out of the
\ntripartite contractual scenario, only two parties
\nremain, the beneficiaries of the abolition of the
\nerstwhile contract labour system i.e. the
\nworkmen on the one hand and the employer on
\nthe other, who is no longer their principal
\nemployer but necessarily becomes a direct
\nemployer for erstwhile contract labourers. The
\nlearned Judge also held that in the provision of
\nSection 10 there is implicit legislative intent
\nthat on abolition of the contract labour system,
\nthe erstwhile contract workmen would become
\ndirect employees of the employer in whose
\nestablishment they were earlier working and
\nwere enjoying all the regulatory facilities under
\nChapter V in that very establishment. In regard
\nto the judgment in  Gujarat Electricity Board
\ncase  to which he was a party, the learned
\nJudge observed that he wholly agreed with
\nJustice Ramaswamy’s view that the scheme
\nenvisaged by  Gujarat Electricity Board case was
\nnot workable and to that extent the said
\njudgment could not be given effect to.”\n<\/p>\n
8. This question as to whether the contractor was appointed by
\nway of camouflage being essentially a question of fact, the
\nsame must be determined before the Industrial Adjudicator.
\nSuch a disputed question of fact cannot be determined in a
\nwrit proceeding. Even otherwise, the writ court should not
\nsubstitute itself as an Industrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
 In  Bhuneshwar Mallah and Anr. v. Central Coalfields Ltd. and
\nOrs. 1995 (1) PLJR 43 (of which one of us S.B. Sinha, J. was a member)
\nheld:-\n<\/p>\n
  “5. In view of the fact that the petitioner
\nNo. 1 has since been retired, in our opinion, no
\ncase for issuance of any writ in favor of the
\npetitioners has been made out. Further, even
\nif it be found that the action of the
\nManagement is malafide, the remedy of the
\npetitioner is to raise an Industrial Dispute as in
\nour view, this Court, in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, while exercising
\njurisdiction under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India cannot convert itself into
\nan Industrial Dispute Court. Reference in this
\nconnection may be made to a decision of the
\nSupreme Court reported in 1964 S.C. 1260.”\n<\/p>\n
There is, thus, no error apparent in the face of the
\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n
9. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in
\nthis review application, which is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 (95) FLR 758, (2003) ILLJ 1 Del Author: S Sinha Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. An application for review of this Court’s Order dated 16.04.2002 passed in C.W.P. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-243406","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-23T00:01:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-23T00:01:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1954,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002\",\"name\":\"Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-23T00:01:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-23T00:01:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002","datePublished":"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-23T00:01:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002"},"wordCount":1954,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002","name":"Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-23T00:01:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-rajdhani-mazdoor-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243406","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=243406"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243406\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}