Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Orders of the Industrial Dispute Cases fixed on 13.10.2025 at CGIT, Asansol. on 13 October 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ASANSOL
Reference No. 42/2023
Thika Sramik Adhikar Union Vs. GM (Security), ECL H.Q., Sanctoria and 6 Others
PRESENT : For the Union / Workman : Union representative.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for ECL. The case is fixed up today for further evidence of workman witness. Mr. Dipak Chakraborty appeared as witness and he is examined as WW-2. Documents are marked as Exhibits W-5 and W-6. Witness is cross-examined and discharged. Evidence of workman witness is closed. Let the case be adjourned and fixed on 02/12/2025 for evidence of management witness. At this stage, Thika Sramik Adhikar Union filed an application praying for analogous hearing of this case along with Reference Case No. 6 of 2024 on the ground that union has raised same dispute for payment of bonus for the same set of workmen from the year 2018 to 2021. It is submitted that two hundred seventy six workmen of Reference Case No. 6 of 2024 are involved in the Reference Case No. 42 of 2023 and the principal employer is ECL. Copy of application is served upon the ld. Advocate for ECL. Let the application be fixed up on 02/12/2025 for hearing. Let the case record of Reference Case No. 6 of 2024 be placed with this record on the date fixed. Objection, if any in the meantime.
Sd/-
ASANSOL
Reference No. 06/2025
Fulmoni Bhuia, W/o Late Rajdhar Bhuia Vs. 1&2 Incline, Jhanjra Project, Jhanjra Area, M/s. ECL
PRESENT : For the Union / Workman : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative appeared for Koyala Mazdoor Congress and filed written statement. Copy served upon learned advocate for ECL. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for the Agent, Jhanjra Project, ECL by filing a vokalatnama. An application is filed by Mr. Das praying for time to file written statement. Prayer is allowed. To 02/12/2025 for filing written statement. On a perusal of record I find that this is a simple case for payment of Monetary Compensation to the widow of the deceased. Ld. Advocate for ECL and Management Representative are directed to sort out the issue outside the Tribunal instead of wasting time of this court and creating hardship for the dependent of the deceased employee. To date for filing written statement by ECL and settlement.
Sd/-
ASANSOL
Reference No.14/2022
Shri Tanmay Ruidas Vs. Central Hospital, Kalla, M/s. ECL
PRESENT : For the Union / Workman : Mr. S. K. Pandey, union representative.
Mr. S. K. Pandey, union representative appeared for Tanmay Ruidas. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for Central Hospital, Kalla, ECL. The case is fixed up today for hearing of argument. Heard argument advanced in part. It appears to me that both sides are unprepared and they have not gone through the documents, they are relying upon. Under such circumstance I am not inclined to proceed further. The case is adjourned to 09/12/2025 for hearing of argument. Both sides are directed to come ready.
Sd/-
ASANSOL
Reference No. 15/2022
Sourav Das Vs. Central Hospital, Kalla, M/s. ECL
PRESENT : For the Union / Workman : Mr. S. K. Pandey, union representative.
Sourav Das is represented by Mr. S. K. Pandey, union representative. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for Central Hospital, Kalla, ECL. The case is fixed up today for hearing of argument. Heard argument in full. Matter relates to non-payment of House Rent Allowance to Sourav Das who came on transfer from Jhanjra Project Colliery to Central Hospital, Kalla on 18/03/2019. He applied for quarters on 31/10/2019 but no quarters was allotted to him. Management submitted that OfÏce order dated 26/12/2019 was issued allotÝng quarters to a group of employees. It appears from the record that the aggrieved workman on 27/11/2019 (Exhibit W-2) applied for payment of House Rent Allowance even before ofÏce order allotÝng quarters was passed. Ld. Advocate for the management argued that once available quarters is allotted to workman, he is not entitled to get House Rent Allowance even if he does not take possession of the same. However, he could not produce any mandate binding to parties that a workman has no choice but to reside in the company’s quarters. Considered argument. Award is reserved.
Sd/-