A compensation order affecting a contractor is unsustainable without impleadment and an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner, Sri Ratan Paul, challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution the deduction of ₹56,74,091 from his bill for work executed under the PM-JANMAN Scheme.

The deduction was allegedly made by the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (TSECL) towards recovery of compensation paid to workers in proceedings relating to a separate contract under the RE-DDUGJY Scheme.

In proceedings before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa, registered as TS(EC) 02 of 2020, an order dated 29 April 2023 directed payment of compensation to the claimants.

Although TSECL paid the compensation and recovered the amount from the petitioner’s bills, the petitioner was neither impleaded in those proceedings nor given an opportunity to present his case.

1. Whether the order dated 29 April 2023 passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa, could stand when the petitioner, whose bills were ultimately debited, was not impleaded or heard in the proceedings.

2. Whether the deduction of ₹56,74,091 from the petitioner’s PM-JANMAN Scheme bill was liable to be declared illegal and the amount directed to be repaid with interest.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the legality of the impugned action and the underlying order.

It applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule that a person whose rights or pecuniary interests are adversely affected must be given notice and a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

It further applied the rule against adjudication in the absence of a necessary party, holding that the affected contractor had to be impleaded and permitted to file pleadings and lead documentary or oral evidence before the matter could be decided on merits.

The Court found that the petitioner’s bills were debited pursuant to compensation proceedings in which he had not been made a party, despite the direct financial consequence of the order upon him.

This omission amounted to a clear violation of natural justice and rendered the adjudication procedurally defective.

Since the petitioner had not been heard, the Court considered it inappropriate to determine the legality of the deduction or the petitioner’s substantive entitlement at that stage.

Instead, it set aside the order dated 29 April 2023 and directed a fresh adjudication after bringing the petitioner on record and allowing all parties to file pleadings and evidence.

The order dated 29 April 2023 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after the petitioner was brought on record and given an opportunity to present pleadings and documentary/oral evidence.

The Court did not finally decide whether the deduction of ₹56,74,091 was lawful or whether the petitioner was entitled to repayment with interest.

The writ petition was disposed of, and any pending miscellaneous applications were closed.