ID No. 80/2024 titled as Sh. Surender Majhi vs CPWD on 26 November 2025

1. The Director, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The Executive Engineer, Parliament Division, Y Shape Building, IP Bhawan, New Delhi.

3. Work Cum TLQ (A), Special Director of General Project and Chandigarh CPWD, Kendriya Sadan, Sec-9, Chandigarh.

4. The Assistant Engineer, CPWD 2(T), G.P. O. Complex INA, New Delhi- 110023.

5. M/s Hill Top Refrigeration, Govt. Contractor, Regd. Off. 2/103, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi-110027.

…Management

AWARD

1. In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-ND-25/III-36/2023-IR dated 12.04.2024 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under: The Schedule ‘‘Whether the demands of Shri Surender Majhi S/o Shri Bilas through All India CPWD Karamchari Union for regularization of his services in the establishment of CPWD and payment of salary & other benefits at par with his regular counterparts, is legal and/or justified? If so, what relief the workman concerned is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.

3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favor of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. But, no claim statement was filed on his behalf. On one occasion, attendance on behalf of the claimant was mark and more time was sought for filing of statement. Thereafter, neither the claimant appeared nor filed statement of claim. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

4. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Date: 26.11.2025

ATUL KUMAR GARG

Presiding Officer

CGIT – cum – Labour Court – I