Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Sh. Deepak Kumar Kheral vs Central Vigilance Commission & Anr on 6 November 2024
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 177/2015
Sh. Deepak Kumar Kheral, S/o Sh. Jai Raj Kheral, R/o- 175, Janta Quarter, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi.
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. Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi-110005.
2. M/s Mahabir & Brothers 14-B-47, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Appearance:- For Claimant: None For Managements: Sh. Sumant, Proxy for M-1
None for M-2
AWARD This is an application of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act). Claimant had stated in his claim statement that he had been working with the respondent since 14.09.2011 at the post of Peon at the last drawn salary Rs. 6,800/- Per month. He did his work well and has not given any chance of making any complaint to the management nor he was charged while he was in service. Management was not providing services benefits as per labour law and the ESI facility was also provided very late. Management used to cut the amount on account of PF but the management had not provided any information regarding the PF nor provided any PF slip. The entire act of the management was against the law. When the workman demanded the same, management assured to think about the same. On 16th of February, when the workman went to establishment to join his duty but management informed that he has been turned out from the job and when the workman asked the reason for the same, the management did not answered the same and also refused to pay earned salary and without issuing any show cause notice or without holding any enquiry by the management he was illegally terminated from his job. Workman had many times approached to the management for his reinstatement, earned salary and service benefits but the management did not pay any heed to the request of the workman. He had sent the complaint to the labour commissioner, but, it has yielded no result. Hence, he has filed the present claim. WS has been filed by the Management-1. No one is appearing on behalf of the M-2 since beginning. Management-1 has denied the averment made in the claim statement. He also submits that claim is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Issues have been framed vide order dated 16.02.2017. Now, the matter is listed for workman evidence. Workman is required to adduce his evidence. Despite providing a number of opportunities, neither the claimant nor his AR is appearing to substantiate his cliam. In these circumstances, when the claimant has not been appearing since long to substantiate his claim, it appears that he is not interested to pursue his case. His 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 Date: 06.11.2024
Presiding Officer.
CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II