Pawan Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 55 Del

ORDER

1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that para 1 of the prayer has not been correctly produced in the petition. He submits that his prayer is for a direction to be issued to the respondent to complete the inquiry on the complaint of the petitioner. Oral prayer is allowed.

2. Rule.

3. With the Counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for disposal today.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has been heard. Petitioner claims to have been engaged as a sub-contractor for carrying out works at the NTPC through respondent-M/s. Control and Switchgear Co. Ltd. Petitioner's case is that he duly executed the works. There is allegation made in the petition by the petitioner pointing out malpractices and discrepancies in the works done through respondent-M/s. Control and Switchgear Co. Ltd. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the work of the petitioner related to welding of aluminum sheets to join the generator with the transformer and the same was required to be done in a very precise manner so that there are no air bubbles. For release of bills and payments, respondent-M/s. Controls and Switchgear Co. Ltd., was required to take x-rays of these joints. It is the petitioner's case that while the work was executed the respondent-M/s. Controls and Switchgear Co. Ltd., got the x-ray done of some other aluminum sheets showing the joint and not the x-ray of actual work done by the petitioner. Collusion is alleged between the employees of respondent-NTPC as well as those of respondent-M/s. Controls and Switchgear Co. Ltd.

5. As regards petitioner's claim for dues against respondent-M/s. Controls and Switchgear Co. Ltd., is concerned, this is purely a contractual matter and it is for the petitioner to seek relief in the appropriate Civil Court.

6. Para 17 in the petition contains averments which are misleading. During the course of hearing learned Counsel has confirmed that the site engineers referred to in para 17 of the petition are the employees of respondent-M/s. Switchgear Control Company Ltd. Petitioner obviously cannot make a grievance if its contractor makes payment to its own employees.

7. As far as allegation made with regard to imperfect work being allowed by respondent-NTPC on account of extraneous and corrupt practice on the part of its officials is concerned, Mr. S.K. Taneja, learned Senior Counsel, on instructions from Counsel for NTPC, submits that NTPC is fully conscious of its responsibilities and NTPC shall duly ensure that the work which was assigned has been examined as per specifications and no malpractices are indulged by its employees. In case there is any merit in the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Vigilance Officer, NTPC, the same would be objectively considered.

8. Petition is dismissed with above observations.