Dismissed

Id No. 111 to 114 of 2019 of Mohd. Aftab Alam v. Trai & Anr.

CGIT12 Sept 2024ID No. 111 to 114 of 2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Composite order dismissing four termination applications filed by workmen against Delhi Metro and Nuvision. Petitioners failed to appear to substantiate claims after summons, resulting in dismissal of their suits filed under Section 2A of the ID Act.

What did the court decide?

Claims for illegal termination, reinstatement, and back wages were dismissed due to non-appearance of petitioners.

Id No. 111 to 114 of 2019 of Mohd. Aftab Alam Vs Trai & Anr. — Service and Employment | CGIT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

¶2

I.D. NO. 111/2019

¶3

Mohd. Aftab Alam, S/o Mohd. Nayeemuddin,

¶4

Correspondence Address:-F-625, 25Foota Road, Khadda Colony, Jaitpur Extn. Part-II, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044. Permanent Address:- Village-Madanpur (Shampur) P.S. Haveli Khadakpur, District-Munger, Bihar,

¶5

I.D. No. 112/2019

¶6

Mohd. Nisar Alam, S/o Sh. Mohd. Gulab,

¶7

Correspondence Address:- F-231, Sahin Bagh, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025.

¶8

Permanent Address:- R/o Vishunpur Margi, Pirol Urf Rasulpur Shamshuddin, District- Vaishali, Bihar.

¶9

I.D. No. 113/2019

¶10

Sh. Bharat Dev, S/o Late Sh. Tarani Tanti,

¶11

Correspondence Address: A-152/8, Gagan Vihar, Meethapur,

¶12

Jaitpur, New Delhi-110044. Permanent Address:- Village-Madanpur (Shampur) P.S. Haveli Khadakpur, District-Munger, Bihar,

¶13

I.D. No. 114/2019

¶14

Smt. Poonam Kumar, W/o Late Sh. Varun Kumar Shah, R/o WZ- 851, Naryana Village, Ring Road, New Delhi-110028.

¶15

Versus

¶16

1. The Managing Director, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

¶17

Metro Bhawan, Fire Bridge Lane, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

¶18

2. The Managing Director, Nuvision Commercial & Escorts Services, S.C.O. No. 16, 17, 18, Shiv Narayan Complex, Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana.

¶19

Appearance:

¶20

For Claimants: None

¶21

For Managements: Sh. Nitesh Sharma, Ld. AR with Sh. Akhilesh (LWI) for M-1 i.e. DMRC.

¶22

None for M-2.

¶23

AWARD

¶24

By this composite order, I shall dispose of these four applications of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act) filed by the different claimants against the same respondents, because of having the common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for their illegal termination. All the four workmen claim to be employed by the management-2 as TOM (Ticket Operation Machine) Operators for management-1 at the last drawn salary of Rs. 10,000/- since 2013 respectively. They have been doing their duty with diligently and honestly and did not give any chance to the management for any complaint. Management had deprived them of various legal benefits i.e. PF, ESI, Leave Wages, Bonus etc. They have several times approached the management orally and requested for giving the said benefits, but the management did not pay any heed. Works performed by the workmen are perennial in nature is not an intermittent or of causal nature.

¶25

Management-1 first terminated the contract of management-2 and again grants him fresh contract w.e.f. 17.11.2017. Management-2 had issued the notice of termination of these workmen on 06.10.2017 as such they have made prayer that the order of termination by management-2 be declared as illegal and they be reinstated with full back wages.

¶26

Respondent-1 had filed the WS and denied the relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workmen. They stated that claimants were employee of independent contractor M/s Nuvision Commercial & Escort Services . ESI, EPF facilities have been given by them. Hence he submits that no industrial dispute exists between management-1 and management-2. Management-2 never appears in the present cases.

¶27

In the absence of the claimants, vide order dated 01.03.2023 following issues has been framed i.e.:

¶28

Whether the proceedings are maintainable?

¶29

Whether they exists employer and employee relationship of between the M1 and the claimants?

¶30

Whether the services of the claimants were illegally terminated and from which managements?

¶31

To what relief to workmen are entitled to, from whom, and from which date?

¶32

Now, the matters are listed for workmen evidence. They are required to file their affidavits. Despite, providing a number of opportunities, workmen have not been appearing since long to substantiate their claims.

¶33

In these circumstances, when the claimants are not interested in pursuing the claims. Their claim stands dismissed. Awards are passed accordingly. Copies of these awards are filed in each of the file. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. Files are consigned to record room.

¶34

ATUL KUMAR GARG

¶35

Date 12^th September, 2024 Presiding Officer.

Id No. 111 to 114 of 2019 of Mohd. Aftab Alam v. Trai & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Id No. 111 to 114 of 2019 of Mohd. Aftab Alam v. Trai & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Id No. 160 of 2023 of Sh. The General Secretary Vs Celebi

Id No. 165 of 2016 of Mohd. Shakir Hussain Vs Ashok Hotel & Ors.

Id No. 184 of 2023 of Sh. The General Secretary Vs Celebi

Id No. 185 of 2017 of Sh. K. Mani Vs Kotak Mahindra

Id No. 242 of 2017 of Sh. Ram Chandra Kumar Vs Airport Authority of India

Id No. 231 of 2017 of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Vs Airport Authority of India & Ors.

Id No. 230 of 2017 of Sh. Deepak Kumar Vs Airport Authority of India

Id No. 229 of 2017 of Sh. Dharmendra Kumar Vs Airport Authority of India & Ors.