Sh. Narender Kumar vs Indus-Ind Bank & Anr on 3 September 2026

1. Indusind Bank Ltd., 01st Floor, Block-01, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055.

2. Clear Secured Services Pvt. Ltd., Runwal & Omkar, E Squar, 201-D, 02nd Floor, Sion (East) Mumbai, Maharashtra-400022.

AWARD 03.09.2026

1. This is an application U/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) filed by the claimant stating that he was working as a “Security Guard” with the managements since 01.04.2020 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 9,000/- per month. He was deputed by management no. 2 at the office of management no. 1 and since then he has been working with management no. 1. During the course of his employment, he performed his duty with utmost dedication and without any complaints from managements. Managements had deprived him from facilities like ESIC, bonus and leave encashment. Management neither gave any appointment letter to him nor did they issue any pay slips. When he demanded for all such benefits from managements, his services was terminated on 06.06.2021. He had gone to the conciliation, but it was resulted into failure. Hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer that he be reinstated with full back wages.

2. Management no. 1 had already been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.04.2023.

3. Management no. 2 has filed its WS, denying the averment made in the claim statement of the claimant. He also submitted that claim of the claimant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4. Rejoinder against the management no. 2 has been filed by the claimant wherein he denied the averments made by the management no. 2 and affirmed the facts mentioned in his claim statement.

3. After completion of the pleadings vide order dated 18.03.2025, following issues have been framed i.e.:

(i) Whether the claim qua management no. 1 (Indusind Bank) is maintainable.

(ii) Whether there existed any employee-employer relationship between the claimant and management no. 2.

(iii) If the answer is yes, whether the claimant’s services had been terminated illegally and unjustifiably.

(iv) Relief, if any.

3. Now, the matter is listed for workman evidence. However, neither the workman nor his AR has been appearing since long to substantiate his claim, despite providing a number of opportunities.

4. 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 be sent to the appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. File is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG Date: 03.09.2026

Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II