Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Sh. Mahesh kumar vs C.B.S.E. & Anr on 16 July 2025
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO- II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 249/2022
Sh. Mahesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Kartar Singh,
Through- Samajwadi Karamchari Union,
D-212, Gali No. 10, Jagatpuri, Mandoli Road, Delhi-110093.
Versus
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.
1. The Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra, 2-Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.
2. King Security Guards Services Pvt. Ltd., 39-A/102, Mohammadpur Village, Near Ram Mandir, New Delhi-110066.
Appearance:- For Claimant: Sh. Ajay Tyagi, Ld. AR along with claimant. For Management: Ms. Vilaksha Daima, Ld. AR for the management-1.
Sh. Kripal Singh, Ld. AR for management-2.
AWARD 16.07.2025
This is an application U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after is referred as an Act) filed by the claimant stating that he was working with the management as Security Guard since 04.03.2019 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 17,500/- per month. He was deprived from legal facilities i.e. appointment letter, salary slip etc. When he demanded for the above said facilities, he services was illegally terminated on 01.01.2020. He has gone to the conciliation, but, it was resulted into failure. Hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer that he be reinstated with full back wages. Management no. 1 has filed its WS. They have denied the averment made in the statement of claim. They have also submitted that claim is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
Management no. 2 has also filed its WS stating that claimant misused the process of law by filing the present claim. They have denied the averment made in the statement of claim. He submitted that claim is liable to be dismissed.
Now, the matter is listed for filing of rejoinder. Counsel of the workman submits that claimant is not in touch with him since long.
In these circumstances, when the claimant is not interested in perusing his case, this Tribunal has no option but to dismiss his claim. Hence, his claim stands dismissed. Award is accordingly passed. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. Record of this file is consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG Date: 16.07.2025
Presiding Officer.
CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II