The Tribunal opined that the dispute ceases to be an industrial dispute if no claim is espoused by any union or there is no espousal pleaded or placed on record. Further, it was ruled that when the workman is not in service, the claim itself would not survive for revocation of transfer orders.
Brief Facts:
A workman filed a claim in his individual capacity and an application under Article 14 of the Constitution of India was filed. The matter was related to the transfer of workman.
Contentions of workman:
It was contended that the matter was related to transfer and hence, there was no need for any espousal. Further, the dispute was filed in an individual capacity and therefore there was no need for espousal or claim to be preferred through the union.
Contentions of Management:
It was argued that the cause of reference has been espoused and hence, the workman could not go beyond his claim statement.
Observations of the Tribunal:
It was noted that the dispute was referred by the Labour Department. There was no mention of a workman being a member of the union. The Tribunal ruled that the dispute does not fall under the category as prescribed under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was held that the dispute was not an industrial dispute and only an individual dispute.
The Tribunal opined that the dispute ceases to be industrial dispute if no claim is espoused by any union or there is no espousal pleaded or placed on record. Further, it was ruled that when the workman is not in service, the claim itself would not survive for revocation of transfer orders.
The decision of the Tribunal:
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the claim of the workman was rejected.
Case Title: Kuljeet Singh Chadha v. M/s IBM India Pvt. Ltd.
Coram: Jitendra Kumar Mishra
Case No.: ID No. 1069/16
Advocate for Workman: Sh. Ashok Agyani
Advocate for Management: Ms. Raavi Birbal
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
