Amit Kumar Yadav vs M/S The Transco And Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 4182 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 12456/2009

%                 Date of Decision: 15th October, 2009


#     AMIT KUMAR YADAV                               ..... PETITIONER

!                 Through:   Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Advocate.

                                   VERSUS

$     M/S THE TRANSCO & ANOTHER                       ....RESPONDENTS

^ Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra and Mr. Mukesh Tiwari, Advocates for respondent No. 1.

CORAM:

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The petitioner was employed as Junior Mistry on current charge

basis with the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB). He was engaged by

the erstwhile DVB on current charge basis w.e.f. 26.02.2001. The

erstwhile DVB ceased to exist w.e.f. 01.07.2002. The DVB was

unbundled w.e.f. 01.07.2002. Consequent upon unbundling of DVB, the

generation of electricity went to GENCO, transmission went to TRANSCO

and the distribution of electricity in Delhi came to the share of DISCOM.

For the purpose of distribution of electricity, Delhi was divided into six

regions, i.e., East, Central, South, South-West, North and North-West.

The distribution of electricity in the East and Central Region went to BSES

Yamuna Power Limited, the distribution of electricity in the South and

South-West Region went to BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, North and

North-West Region went to NDPL. Section 16 of the Delhi Electricity

Reforms Act, 2000, conferred powers on the Government of NCT of Delhi

to frame rules for transfer of personnel and employees working in the

erstwhile DVB to its successor companies. Exercising its powers under

Section 16 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000, the Government

framed rules for transfer of employees of the erstwhile DVB to the

successor companies and these rules are called Delhi Electricity Reform

(Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001. The relevant rule which deals with the

transfer of employees to the successor companies is Rule 6.

Pursuant to the rules for transfer of personnel and employees of the

erstwhile DVB to the successor companies were framed, the personnel

working in the erstwhile DVB were alloted to different companies vide

notification dated 20.11.2001. The name of the petitioner along with

some other personnel, did not figure in the said notification dated

20.11.2001. The petitioner along with others, therefore, filed a writ

petition being W.P.(C.) No. 5179/2002 for issuance of an appropriate writ

or directions to allocate them also to the successor companies. This writ

petition being W.P.(C.) No. 5179/2002 was withdrawn by the petitioner

because the Government had issued a corrigendum dated 30.09.2002

allocating the petitioner to the successor company mentioning 'East'

against his name appearing at Sl. No. 21 in the said corrigendum.

Thereafter, though the name of the petitioner was included in the

corrigendum dated 30.09.2002 and he was allocated to the 'East' but as

he was not accepted by any of the successor companies, he filed another

writ petition being W.P.(C.) No. 8075/2002 and this writ petition was filed

by the petitioner against BSES Yamuna Power Limited being respondent

No. 2 in the said petition. The cause title of the second petition is at page

46 of the Paper Book. The second writ petition being W.P.(C.) No.

8075/2002 was also withdrawn by the petitioner and was dismissed as

withdrawn vide order dated 20.03.2004 granting liberty to the petitioner

to take recourse to proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

pertaining to his dis-engagement/dis-continuation/non-engagement.

Pursuant to the liberty granted to the petitioner vide order dated

20.03.2004 in W.P.(C.) No. 8075/2002, the petitioner raised an industrial

dispute with regard to his dis-engagement/dis-continuation against

TRANSCO and not against the companies against whom the writ petition

being W.P.(C.) No. 8075/2002 was filed and was withdrawn. The

industrial dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to his dis-

engagement/dis-continuation has been decided by the Labour Court

against him vide impugned award dated 06.02.2008. It has been held by

the Labour Court in the said award that there is no relationship of

employer and employee between the parties. It is also held in the

impugned award that the petitioner was not allocated to the company

'TRANSCO'.

I have gone through the impugned award carefully and have

considered the submissions made by Mr. Ashok Gurnani, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner. On going through the same, I do

not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned award that may call

for an interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution. As the petitioner, on unbundling of the

erstwhile DVB, was allocated to the company described as 'East' in the

corrigendum dated 30.09.2002, the petitioner should have raised dispute

with regard to his dis-engagement/dis-continuation against BSES Yamuna

Power Limited. It appears that the petitioner was well aware that he was

not allocated to the company 'TRANSCO' and it is for this reason the

'TRANSCO' was not impleaded as party respondent in the second writ

petition being W.P.(C.) No. 8075/2002. The petitioner can take

appropriate proceedings pertaining to dis-engagement/dis-continuation

against M/s BSES Yamuna Power Limited as per law.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ

petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

OCTOBER 15, 2009                                      S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'