The Tribunal allowed a Section 33C(2) application for arrears of pay and allowances totaling Rs. 3,44,646. While standard prayer for interest was denied, future delay interest was awarded at 6% if payment is not made within 30 days.
Payment of Rs. 3,44,646 directed within 30 days. Future delay interest fixed at 6% p.a.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI – 1, ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
LCA NO. 2340/ 2019
Smt. Bala W/o Sh. Jai Kishan, Through General Secretary, Municipal Employees Union, Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi 110054 Claimant
Versus
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Center Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Minto Road, Delhi- 110002 Management
Shri Rajiv Agarwal, A/R for the claimant None for the management
ORDER
Ex WW1/3. No one turned up from the management side for cross examination of the workman witness. The cross examination of the workman witness was treated as nil. Workman evidence was thereafter closed. Management neither appeared nor led evidence. The management evidence was closed.
Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava Presiding Officer Retired Judge of High Court of Allahabad November 08, 2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the claimant is entitled to arrears of pay, allowances, and increments for post-regularization service.
Whether the Tribunal can award interest following a Section 33C(2) application.
Whether the management is liable to pay delayed interest if the principal sum is not remitted within the stipulated period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India vs. Presiding Officer CGITRelied on¶12
Union of India vs. Presiding Officer CGIT in 1984 AISLJ 567
King Airways vs. Captain Manjit SinghRelied on¶12
King Airways vs. Captain Manjit Singh decided in WPC No. 2666 of 2010
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vikas Kunvar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
An application to a Labour Court, most commonly under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for computation of money due to a workman.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
