Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Mohd. Shakir Hussain vs Ashok Hotel & ors on 10 September 2024
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.165/2016
Mohd. Shakir Hussain S/o Late Abdul Rahim R/o B-4/365, Paryatan Vihar, New Delhi-110096
Workman…
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. M/s New Hitech Electrical Government Contractor, Through its CEO/Authorized Person, At 284, DDA Market, under Defence Colony Flyover, Near Jangpura Extn., Metro Station, New Delhi-110024
Also at:- 33, Prime Minister Society, B-Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018
2. The C.M.D., I.R.D.C., 6th Floor, Scope Building, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. General Manager, Ashok Hotel, 50-B, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi-110021 Management…
AWARD
1. This is an application Under Section 2A of the I.D. Act whereby, the applicant made prayer that his termination from the service on 16.01.2018 by the management which be declare illegal and unjustified and he be reinstated with full back wages, it is the case of the applicant/workman that he has been working with the management. He has not been provided any legal facilities. He was illegally terminated form his service on 16.01.2018 without any rhyme or reason and without conducted any domestic enquiry by the management. He has initiated the conciliation proceeding but, no result. Hence, he had filed the present claim petition.
2. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favor of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
3. Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava Retired Judge, Allahabad High Court
Presiding Officer Date: 10.09.2024