NTPC Ltd. vs Government of India and Others

Bharati Sapru, J.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this matter. This petition has been filed by the NTPC against an order of reference which is being referred as hereunder:

"Whether the action of the management of NTPC, Shaktinagar, Sonebhadra, U.P. in terminating the services of Shri Raj Kumar Bholanath Meshram, Male Nurse from its Sanjiving Hospital Shaktinagar w.e.f. 14.6.2011 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to and what extent?"

It is contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that although the claim made by the respondent-workman is that NTPC is the principal employer and although the respondent-workman is not receiving any salary from NTPC but through one M/s. Vimla Enterprises and on a contract basis with M/s. Utility Powertech Ltd., another company.

The respondent-workman is entitled to be declared as an employee of the principal employer. In paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the claim filed by the respondent-workman this has been very clearly stated by the respondent-workman. The objection taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-workman is not their employee but a contractor''s workman and if the reference is to be made the contractor and other persons through whom the respondent-workman is setting up his claim, is to be a party.

Ms. Mahma Maurya who appears for the respondent-workman argues that ultimately the claim lies against the principal employer and it has not even necessary to make contractor as a necessary party. But that is not so.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is correct to say that taking into account the claim itself as made by the respondent-workman, the contractor and other parties through whom the respondent-workman is setting up his claim, is to be a party for a decision in the reference which has been made.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the reference is to be reframed and in the present stage it cannot stand. The argument made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is valid one. It is accepted by the Court. The reference which has been made by the Central Government is, therefore set aside. It is open to the parties to seek a fresh reference of the matter. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.