Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Smt. Sangita Devi vs Ministry of Information and Broadcasting & Ors on 4 December 2024
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM –
LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
ID No. 150/2023
Ms. Sangita Devi vs. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Anr.
Smt. Sangeeta Devi, S/o Sh. Krishna Kumar, House No.-A-230, J.J. Colony, Tigri, New Delhi-110062.
…Claimant/Applicant
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. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Gate no.-02, Ground Floor & 1st Floor, Lodhi Colony, CGO Complex, New Delhi-110003.
2. Pankaj Security Services, House No-100, Gali No.-24, Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
….Managements/Respondents
Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: None for the claimant.
For Management/ Respondent: None for Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (Management-1).
Ms. Mansi Asthana and Ms. Komalpreet Kaur, Ld. ARs for Pankaj Security Services (management-2).
Award
This is an application filed U/s 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred as ‘the act’). The claimant in her claim statements stated that she had been working as a sweeper in the premises of management-1 since 15.11.2015 at the salary of Rs. 14,500/- per month; management-1 kept changing the contractors but the claimant continued to work diligently with the management; she wasn’t getting mandatory facilities such as appointment letter, minimum wage, earned leaves, gazetted holidays, salary slip, bonus etc. When she raised objection regarding the same, she was terminated on 23.09.2022 without prior notice, charge sheet or enquiry. She went to the office of management demanding to reinstate her but her demand was denied vehemently; she also sent a demand letter dated 04.10.2022 by speed post but she didn’t receive any reply. She prayed that she be reinstated with full back wages and litigation expense with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum.
2. Management-1 didn’t appear since beginning of the proceedings to contest the claim.
3. Management-2 appeared and filed its W.S. where it stated that the claim was false, frivolous, baseless, vexatious, concocted and vague; it denied that the claimant was appointed as a sweeper w.e.f. 15.11.2015 through contractor as alleged; the claimant had joined the services of management on 01.07.2019 and worked till 31.03.2021; the claimant was irregular in performing her duties and used to be absent from the duty without informing the management or its officials; she used to receive all the legal facilities such as attendance, promotion, bonus, leaves, overtime, travelling allowance etc.; she was absent from the work without intimating the management since 31.03.2021; when the answering management enquired about her absence, she didn’t pay any heed; shockingly, it came to the knowledge of management that she was gainfully employed with another employer. Hence, the answering management was forced to appoint another person in her place. It further submitted there was no outstanding due towards the claimant and made prayer that claim of the claimant be dismissed with cost.
4. Thereafter, the claimant was required to file her rejoinder. However, neither rejoinder has been filed nor the claimant has been appearing for prosecution her claim despite providing a number of opportunities. Hence, her claim stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG
Dated 04.12.2024.
Presiding Officer
CGIT – cum – Labour Court – II