Sh. Rajender Kumar vs CPWD & Ors on 5 May 2026

1. The Director General, Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Executive Engineer, Assistant Director General, Police HQ-12, New Delhi-110002.

3. The Executive Engineer, M-413 (R), Bharo Marg, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi-110001.

4. Rakshat Securities (Contractor), T-5, Plot No. 12, Manish Plaza-111, Sector-10, New Delhi-110075.

…Managements/respondents Award 05.05.2026

Item No.- 09

05th May 2026 Present: Sh. Prakash Chandra, Ld. AR for the claimant. Ms. Pritanshu, proxy counsel for management-1, 2 & 3 (CPWD). Sh. Ashutosh Verma, Ld. AR for management-4. (M/s. Rakshat Securities). The Ld. AR for the claimant has pressed his application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment of the Secretary, P.W.D.; application

under Order XII Rule 8 read with Section 151 CPC for impleadment of the Secretary, P.W.D.; and application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC for placing additional documents on record. Taking up the first application whereby the applicant seeks deletion of management no.1, namely the Director General, CPWD, from the array of parties on the ground that it is neither a necessary party nor is any relief claimed against it. It is further submitted that in its place, the Secretary, P.W.D., GNCTD, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, Delhi-110002, be impleaded as a party, because it is the controlling authority of management nos.2 and 3 in the present matter. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to briefly reproduce the facts of the present case. The claimant has alleged that he was working with management no.1, Director General, CPWD; management no.2, Executive Engineer, Police HQ- 12, New Delhi-110002; management no.3, Executive Engineer, M- 413 (R), Bhairon Marg, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi-110001; and management no.4, Sh. Rakshat Securities (Contractor), and that his services were terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the managements. Management nos.1, 2 and 3, in their written statement, have explicitly denied the relationship of employer and employee with the claimant. It is also a matter of record that a certificate under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was issued by the Dy. CLC (Central), New Delhi. Considering the prayer of the Ld. AR for the claimant seeking deletion of the Director General, CPWD, from the array of parties, the application is allowed. However, this case cannot be entertained by this Tribunal any further, as this Tribunal has jurisdiction only over cases filed against the departments of the Central Government, wholly or partially. At this stage, the Ld. AR for the claimant has agreed to withdraw the present case. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present claim stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the claimant to file the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be sent to the appropriate Government for notification as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case file be consigned to the Record Room.

Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-labour court-II