Disposed

Id No. 35 of 2023 of Sh. Raj Karan v. Iocl & Anr.

CGIT10 Sept 2024ID No. 35 of 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal considered a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act regarding alleged illegal termination and sought reinstatement. The claimant failed to appear or file a claim statement despite opportunities. Consequently, the tribunal passed a no disputant award.

What did the court decide?

A no disputant award was passed due to the claimant's default in appearing and filing the claim.

Id No. 35 of 2023 of Sh. Raj Karan Vs Iocl & Anr. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | CGIT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

ID.No. 35/2023

¶3

Sh. Raj Karan, S/o Sh. Umrao Singh, Through-Delhi Karamchari Sangh, W-04, In Front of Kalkaji Bus Depot, Govindpuri, New Delhi-110019.

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

1. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (Marketing Division) Brijwasan, New Delhi-110061.

¶6

2. Retd. Col. Sh. Rajan Kumar, (Proprietor) Raj Kumar Rajan Security Agency, Ground Floor-04, Competent House, Plot No. 07, R.B.C. Nagal Ray, New Delhi-110046.

¶7

Appearance:

¶8

For Claimant: None

¶9

For Managements: Sh. Navin Kumar, Ld. AR for M-1.

¶10

Sh. Gyanveer Singh, Ld. AR for M-2.

¶11

AWARD

¶12

The appropriate Government has sent the reference refer dated 12.01.2023 to this tribunal for adjudication in the following words:

¶13

“Whether demands of Sh. Raj Karan S/o Sh. Umrao

¶14

Singh, Security Guard through Delhi Karamchari Sangh (Regd.) vide letter dated 08.06.2022 against the management of M/s Rajan Kumar Rajan Security Agency, New Delhi (Contractor) under Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Bijwasan, New

¶15

Delhi over the issue of alleged illegal termination of his services w.e.f. 01.05.2022 and reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits, are proper, legal and justified under ID Act, 1947? If yes, to what relief the disputant is entitled and what direction, if any, is necessary in the matter?”

¶16

After receiving the said reference, notices were issued to both the parties. Managements have been appearing in each date of hearing but, the claimant has not been appearing since the reference has been received to this tribunal. Even, the claimant has not come forward to file his claim statement before this tribunal, despite, providing a number of opportunities.

¶17

In these circumstances, this tribunal has no option except to pass the no disputant award. Hence, no disputant award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D Act 1947.

¶18

ATUL KUMAR GARG Date: 10.09.2024 Presiding Officer. CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II

Id No. 35 of 2023 of Sh. Raj Karan v. Iocl & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Id No. 35 of 2023 of Sh. Raj Karan v. Iocl & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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