Back
ABDUL MOIN
Suresh Chandra Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Abdul Moin, J.
Heard the petitioner, who appears in person, Shri. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri. Rakesh Bajpai as well as Shri. Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsels for the respondent no. 4.
2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally being decided.
3. Under challenge is the award dated 15.12.2016 passed by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in I.D. No. 83/2012 in re: Suresh Chandra Yadav v. The Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udaan Academy, Raebareli.
4. By the said award, learned Tribunal has recorded that as the workman/petitioner herein has not adduced any evidence in support of his claim statement neither any witness has been produced by him in court, as such there is no reason to disbelieve the version given by the management in its written statement and as such, has not granted any relief to the petitioner.
5. Contention of the petitioner is that he was working as Assistant Grade A under the respondent no.4/Academy when he raised an industrial dispute pertaining to his non-promotion on the post of Assistant Grade B and Assistant
Financial hardship can justify delays in legal proceedings, and parties must be allowed to present evidence in support of their claims.
Financial hardship can justify a party's failure to appear in proceedings, warranting a fresh hearing of the case.
The court emphasizes the importance of legal representation and the right to present evidence in Tribunal proceedings.
A party must be afforded a fair opportunity to present their case, even in the face of previous negligence, to uphold the principles of justice.
Parties in judicial proceedings should be provided sufficient opportunity to present their case, and cases involving substantive rights should be decided on merits, avoiding ex parte decisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employer must follow the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act before terminating the service of an employee, and failure to do so may entit....
The court upheld that the burden of proving continuous service and employee-employer relationship lies with the workman, which was not met, leading to dismissal of the claim based on delay and lack o....
The management's failure to appear and contest the case justified the ex-parte Award for reinstatement of the workman with back wages, as per the Industrial Disputes Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
