Delhi High Court
Indian Express News Papers vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 10 October, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10th October, 2014
+ W.P. (C) 2229/2014
INDIAN EXPRESS NEWS PAPERS ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. N.A. Sabastian,
Adv.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. C. Prakash and
Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advs. for R1.
Mr. P.R. Chopra, Adv. for R2 and R3.
Mr. Purushottam Mishra, Adv. for R4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks necessary action
against respondent nos. 3 and 4 so as to get its order / public notices
implemented by providing paid holiday on 04.12.2013 and 10.04.2014
as per General Election Notice dated 05.03.2014.
2. Further seeks direction against respondent no. 4 to comply with
the same since its orders dated 27.02.2012 and 02.12.2013 are not in
conformity with the same.
3. Mr. N.A. Sabastian, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is a registered Union of Employees
of M/s. Indian Express Limited, 9-10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New
Delhi having registration no. 4460 dated 23.12.1994.
4. Mr. Sabastian further submits that respondent nos. 1 and 2 vide
its notification dated 02.12.2013 notified 04.12.2013 as public holiday
in all government offices, local / autonomous bodies, public sector
undertakings under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi on account of general
election of the Delhi Legislative Assembly.
5. It is further averred in the instant petition that respondent no. 4
vide its notice dated 02.12.2013 has wrongly and illegally provided
only two hours time, either in the beginning or at the end of said shift
on the polling day so that the petitioners can cast their votes as done
earlier on 27.02.2012. Accordingly, petitioner vide its representation
dated 03.12.2013 requested the respondent no. 3 to take necessary
action since respondent no. 3 is not abiding all the directions of the
Chief Electoral Officer.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 4 has
wrongly and illegally not provided paid holiday to its employees on
the day of the Poll on 04.12.2013 and further on 10.04.2014 as
notified by Election Commission of India vide its Press Note dated
05.03.2014.
7. Mr. P.R. Chopra, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that Section 135B of the
Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 provides as under:
"Grant of paid holiday to employees on the day of poll -
(1) Every person employed in any business, trade,
industrial undertaking or any other establishment and
entitled to vote at an election to the House of the People
or the Legislative Assembly of a State shall, on the day of
poll, be granted a holiday.
(2) No deduction or abatement of the wages of any
such person shall be made on account of a holiday
having been granted in accordance with sub-section (1)
and if such person is employed on the basis that he would
not ordinarily receive wages for such a day, he shall
nonetheless be paid for such day the wages he would
have drawn had not a holiday been granted to him on
that day.
(3) If an employer contravenes the provisions of sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2), then such employer shall
be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred
rupees.
(4) This section shall not apply to any elector whose
absence may cause danger or substantial loss in respect
of the employment in which he is engaged."
8. Mr. Chopra further submits that if an employer contravenes the
provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) then such employer is
punishable with fine, which may extend to Rs.500.
9. He further submits that the relief sought in the instant petition
may be taken from the competent authority, i.e., concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi, where the evidence can be led by
both the parties. Therefore, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition
directly.
10. Mr. Chopra further submits that whatever the punishment
provided in the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, has to be
dealt with either by the Election Commission of India or the
concerned authorities. However, in the present case, the relief sought
has to be decided by the concerned Magistrate.
11. At this stage, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
wishes to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file a Complaint
Case before the concerned Magistrate.
12. Liberty granted as prayed.
13. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
SURESH KAIT, J
OCTOBER 10, 2014
jg
