GENERAL MANAGER Vs. TEJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, lays challenge to award dated 5.4.2016, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II Chandigarh (in short "the Industrial Tribunal") in case No. ID No. 242/2012 (Tej Singh v. The General Manager, NHPC and Anr.), whereby the Tribunal below while answering the reference in favour of respondent-workman held the petitioner and respondent No. 2 liable jointly and severely to pay sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation to the workman.

(2.) For having bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts, which may be relevant for adjudication of the petition at hand are that petitioner-General Manager, NHPC, awarded a contract for construction of "Civil and Hydro-mechanical work of Head Race Tunnel and Associate Works" of Pabarti HE Project to respondent No.2. Respondent-workman namely Tej Singh was engaged by respondent No.2 as driver w.e.f. 5.3.2003 on the consolidated salary of Rs. 16,000/- per month, however since services of respondent No.1 came to be retrenched on 18.10.2010, without there being any notice or payment of compensation in terms of provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred to as "the Act"), he raised industrial dispute. Since conciliation failed inter-se respondents No. 1 and 2, Industrial Tribunal in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Act, made following reference to Industrial Tribunal:

(3.) Precisely, respondent-workman claimed before the Tribunal below that respondent No.2, who was awarded work of construction of "Civil and Hydro-mechanical work of Head Race Tunnel and Associate Works" by the petitioner NHPC, appointed him as driver w.e.f. 5.3.2002 and in this capacity, he worked continuously till 18.10.2020, when, his services have been illegally retrenched by respondent No.2. Respondent-workman further claimed that since his services came to be retrenched without there being any notice or payment of compensation as provided under the various provisions of the Act, he deserves to be reinstated. Respondent-workman further claimed that signatures of some of the employees were taken on blank paper and the fact of "lay off" was not brought to the notice of workman as well as the petitioner. Respondent-workman further alleged that respondent No.2 engaged numerous workers from other contracts for the execution of the work at site after his retrenchment and as such, he be ordered to be reinstated in service.