Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Sh. Mohan Prakash Singh vs CPWD on 13 February 2025
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM –
LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
ID No. 279/2021
Sh. Mohan Prakash vs. C.P.W.D.
Sh. Mohan Prakash Singh, S/o Sh. Rati Ram Singhal, Through- The president Sh. Hukum Chand, CPWD
Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex, Shop No.-04, Gurgaon Road, Opposite Bus Stand, Gurgaon, Haryana-
122001.
…Applicant/Claimant
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 Director General, Central Public Work Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
2. The Director of Personal, P.W.D., 12th Floor, MSO Building (P.W.D. H.Q.) I.T.O., New Delhi-110002.
…Managements/respondents
Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: None for the claimant.
For Managements/ Respondents: Sh. Lalit Mohan, representative for the management.
Item No.- 31
I.D. No. 279/2021 13th February 2025 Present: None for the claimant. Sh. Lalit Mohan, UDC for management.
The representative present on behalf of the management has produced the documents in regard to the contract for the year 2017-18 for providing services of Data Entry Operators, messengers, Staff car drivers, M.T.S. etc., which was awarded to Sh. Kuldeep Kumar. He submits that the claimant was engaged through the contractor only for a year. Thereafter, a regular driver from the department replaced him.
Record perused. The claimant had moved an application U/s 2-A of I.D. Act, 1947 submitting that he had worked for Director General C.P.W.D. and Director of personal (P.W.D.). He further submitted that he had requested the management to regularize his services, but the management got annoyed with the request and terminated his services.
On 02.09.2024, AR for the claimant had admitted upon enquiry that the claimant’s salary used to be paid through the contractor. However, he didn’t implead the contractor in this matter.
Considering the fact that the claimant has not appeared thereafter to pursue his claim, the matter stands dismissed due to lack of prosecution. The award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. The file is consigned to record room.
Atul Kumar Garg
Dated 13.02.2025
Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-labour court-II