Dismissed

Id No. 249 of 2022 of Sh. Mahesh kumar v. C.B.S.E. & Anr.

CGIT16 Jul 2025ID No. 249 of 2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Tribunal dismissed a claim filed by a security guard under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act regarding illegal termination. The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to file a rejoinder and the Tribunal found he was not interested in pursuing the case.

What did the court decide?

Claim dismissed with Prince that claimaint has lost interest in pursuing his case.

Id No. 249 of 2022 of Sh. Mahesh kumar Vs C.B.S.E. & Anr. — Service and Employment | CGIT (2025)

¶1

Page 1 of 2

¶2

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NOII, NEW DELHI

¶3

I.D. No. 249/2022

¶4

Sh. Mahesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Kartar Singh, Through- Samajwadi Karamchari Union, D-212, Gali No. 10, Jagatpuri, Mandoli Road, Delhi-110093.

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra, # 2-Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.

¶7

2. King Security Guards Services Pvt. Ltd.,

¶8

39-A/102, Mohammadpur Village, Near Ram Mandir, New Delhi-110066.

¶9

Appearance:-

¶10

For Claimant: Sh. Ajay Tyagi, Ld. AR along with claimant.

¶11

For Management: Ms. Vilaksha Daima, Ld. AR for the management-1.

¶12

Sh. Kripal Singh, Ld. AR for management-2.

¶13

AWARD 16.07.2025

¶14

This is an application U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after is referred as an Act) filed by the claimant stating that he was working with the management as Security Guard since 04.03.2019 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 17,500/- per month. He was deprived from legal facilities i.e. appointment letter, salary slip etc. When he demanded for the above said

¶15

Page 2 of 2

¶16

facilities, he services was illegally terminated on 01.01.2020. He has 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.

¶17

Management no. 1 has filed its WS. They have denied the averment made in the statement of claim. They have also submitted that claim is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Management no. 2 has also filed its WS stating that claimant misused the process of law by filing the present claim. They have denied the averment made in the statement of claim. He submitted that claim is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

Now, the matter is listed for filing of rejoinder. Counsel of the workman submits that claimant is not in touch with him since long.

¶20

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 accordingly passed. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. Record of this file is consigned to record room.

¶21

Date: 16.07.2025

¶22

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

Id No. 249 of 2022 of Sh. Mahesh kumar v. C.B.S.E. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Id No. 249 of 2022 of Sh. Mahesh kumar v. C.B.S.E. & 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. 179 of 2019 of Sh. Roshan Lal Vs Chief Post Master & Ors.

Id No. 199 of 2022 of Sh. Mahadev Vs N.B.C.C. & Anr.

Id No. 271/2024 Sh. Sanjay Vs State Bank of India

Id No. 58/2024 Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs B.G. Shirke Construction

Id No. 258, 260, 263 & 265 of 2021 of Sh. Bhram Pal & Ors. Vs Ministry of Culture

Id No. 220/2023 The General Secretary Vs Sail

Id No. 106/2018 Sh. Kapil Kumar Vs Dmrc

Id No. 211/2017