Insofar as the plea of discrimination qua Mr. Kiran Pal is concerned, I find, no such plea was taken in the claim petition except a bald averment that a workman junior to the petitioner is continuing in the department without naming him. In the ab..
Insofar as the plea of discrimination qua Mr. Kiran Pal is concerned, I find, no such plea was taken in the claim petition except a bald averment that a workman junior to the petitioner is continuing in the department without naming him. In the absence of any specific averment and the name of the person so engaged, no relief could have been granted by the Industrial Tribunal. That apart, it has been observed by the Industrial Tribunal in its order dated May 02, 2013 as under: “The anagement witness has stated in his cross-examination that one Sh. Kiran Pal been continued in service. He was in freezing department whereas the workman was in the Battery Department. Sh. Kiran Pal was trainee technician and he was in deferent department, so his services have been retained. He was working at the time of this workman”. In view of the aforesaid observation of the Industrial Tribunal, even the last plea of the petitioner is unsustainable. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed.
