Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Sh. Prakash Kullu, vs Bank of Baroda on 23 May 2025
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL
TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT-II, NEW
DELHI
I.D. NO. 35/2022
Sh. Prakash Kullu, S/o Sh. Deonis Kullu, R/o 29/103-104, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
Through-General Mazdoor Union,
F-49, Karampura, New Delhi-110015.
VERSUS
The General Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Cottage No.-21, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-
110008.
AWARD
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. This is an application U/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after is referred as an Act) filed by the claimant.
2. Claimant in his claim statement has stated that he was working with the management since 2012 as a Peon and his last drawn salary was Rs. 12,000/- per month. He did his work well and has not given any chance of complaint to the management nor was he charged while he was in service. Since beginning management has not been providing any legal facility i.e. HRA, Pay Slip, Minimum Wages, ESI, PF, Leave Encashment, Causal Leave etc. When the workman demanded for said legal benefits, management had terminated his services illegally on 20.03.2021 without giving any reason and prior notice which is violation of provision of Section 25F and 25G of the ID Act. On 03.08.2021, the workman had sent a demand notice to the management through his union and the same was duly served upon the management, but the management has not reinstated to workman on duty. Thereafter, he had gone to the conciliation officer, but it was resulted into failure. Hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer that he be reinstated with full back wages.
3. Management has been already proceeded ex- parte vide order dated 12.10.2022.
4. Now, the matter is listed for ex-parte workman evidence. Claimant is required to file his affidavit, however, neither the workman nor his AR has been appearing since long to substantiate his claim.
5. 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 passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. File is consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG Date: 23.05.2025 Presiding Officer
CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II