Disposed

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

CGIT10 Sept 2024ID No. 185 of 2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal adjumbled a reference regarding legality of workman termination. Findings reveal the applicant, represented by a union, failed to appear after claim evidence was filed. Consequently, the Tribunal passed a 'No Dispute/Claim' award as the applicant did not substantiate their case.

What did the court decide?

Award passed: 'No Dispute/Claim' because the applicant failed to substantiate their claim due to non-appearance after evidence stage.

Id No. 185 of 2017 of Sh. K. Mani Vs Kotak Mahindra — Service and Employment | CGIT (2024)

¶1

¶2

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1 ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

¶3

ID No. 185/2017

¶4

Sh. K. Mani S/o Sh. Kandraswami, Represented by Karamkar Ekta Kendra, A-704, Transit Camp, Saheed Rajiv Gandhi Colony, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019.

¶5

Workman…

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kotak Mahindra, Old Natural Life Insurance Ltd., Unit No. E-2B, E2C(UGC), Himalaya House, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001.

¶8

M/s Man Machine Solutions Ltd., 143-A, Pocket M, DDA Janta Flats, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110044.

¶9

Management…

¶10

AWARD

¶11

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-L-12012/87/2016 (IR(B-I)) dated 27.06.2017 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

¶12

The Schedule

¶13

“ Whether the action of the management of M/s Man Machine (P) Ltd., Working in the premises of Kotak Life Insurance Ltd., in terminating the workman Sh. K. Mani, is fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date?”

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

¶16

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute. Claim statement filed, rebuttal written statement filed on behalf of the management no. 2.

¶17

Management No.1 is not appearing since long therefore they are proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, issues were framed. Case was listed for claimant evidence on 18.07.2019. After that, claimant evidence was also filed. And after that, none appeared on behalf of the claimant nor his A/R appeared despite providing a number of opportunities, claimant have not appeared to substantiate his claim. 4. 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.

¶18

Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava Retired Judge, Allahabad High Court Presiding Officer

¶19

Date: 10.09.2024

¶20

Page 2 of 2

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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. 101 of 2015 of Sh. The General Secretary Vs Bwfs & Anr.

Id No. 220 of 2021 of Sh. Jaipal Singh Vs Cpwd & Ors.

Id No. 67 of 2015 of Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs Fsi & Ors.

Id No. 85 of 2022 of Sh. Sunil Kumar Vs N.C.C.F

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

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