Fri. Sep 25th, 2020

Bharat Heavy Elelctricals Ltd. vs P.O. Labour Court- Viii & Ors. on 17 July, 2015

2 min read

%
1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the

impugned award dated 09.06.2000.
2. The following reference was made to the learned Labour Court vide

reference No.F24 (2710)/98-Lab./41403-8 dated 23.12.1992 by the

appropriate Government for adjudication, which was registered as ID No.

19/1993:-
“Whether the suspension of Shri Jagdish Prasad

W.P.(C) 926/2001 Page 1
w.e.f. 11.06.90 is mala fide and/or unjustified and
if so, to what relief is he entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?”
3. The petitioner–Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (hereinafter

referred to as ‘BHEL’), was arrayed as respondent No.1 before the learned

Labour Court. Respondent No. 1 is a proforma respondent being the

Presiding Officer of Labour Court. The respondent No.2 before this Court

was the workman and the claimant before the Labour Court (hereinafter

called the claimant). The respondent No.3, the Ideal Caretakers (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the contractor’), was respondent No.2 before the Labour

Court. The claim of the workman before the Labour Court was that though

his wages were paid to him by the contractor, but the same were fixed by

BHEL and actually were paid by BHEL through the contractor. He was

working as an attendant with BHEL and worked till 11.06.1990. The

suspension letter dated 11.06.1990 was issued and served upon him by the

contractor which enclosed the letter dated 08.06.1990 of Deputy Manager of

BHEL. The claimant had contended that he was not paid the suspension

allowance, despite service of the demand notice dated 03.06.1991, wherein

he had also sought reinstatement.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply