Delhi High Court
Delhi State Electricity Workers ... vs Bses Yamuna Power Limited on 11 September, 2020
$~A-14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:11.09.2020
+ W.P.(C) 6319/2020
DELHI STATE ELECTRICITY WORKER'S UNION
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Advocate
versus
BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi & Mr. Sudhir
Nandrajog, Sr. Advocates with Mr.
Anupam Verma, Mr. Nikhil
Sharma, Mr. Aditya Gupta and Ms.
Shivali Rawat, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
CM No.22427/2020 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM No.22428/2020 (Exemption from filing duly notarized affidavits,
vakalatnama and paying Court Fee)
This application has been filed seeking exemption from filing duly
notarised affidavits, vakalatnama and paying requisite court fee. The
application is disposed of with a direction to the Applicant to file the
same within 72 hours from the date of resumption of regular functioning
of the Court.
W.P.(C) 6319/2020
1. Present petition has been filed by the Delhi State Electricity
Workers' Union with the following prayer:
"a. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to
disclose/declare the leave policy as applicable to the
workers/members whose cause is espoused by the Delhi
State Electricity Workers Union"
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is the right of
every workman to be informed of the Leave Rules, to enable the
workman to know the terms and conditions of his entitlement to the kinds
of leave due.
3. Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog Learned Senior
Counsels appearing on behalf of the Respondent take a preliminary
objection to the maintainability of the present petition. Learned Senior
Counsels argue that the instant petition has been filed by one Kuldeep
Kumar, who is a retired employee of the Respondent and the Bye-Laws
of the Union do not permit a retired employee to be a part of the Union
and to assail and espouse the cause of the Members of the Union.
4. Learned Senior Counsels, on instructions, further submit that
insofar as the Leave Policy of the Workman is concerned, the same is
available on the website of the Respondent and can be accessed by the
workman and thus the prayer sought in the present petition is completely
misconceived.
5. Mr. Adit S. Pujari learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently
opposes the preliminary objection and submits that the Bye-laws of the
Union permit a retired employee of the Union to espouse the common
cause of the workmen of the Organisation and he shall be able to
substantiate the same in law.
6. In view of the relief sought in the present petition, this Court does
not consider it necessary to enter into the larger controversy of the
maintainability of the petition by and on behalf of a retired employee of
the Respondent, as a Member of the Union. The question is left open to
be decided in an appropriate case.
7. Insofar as the question of the Leave Policy is concerned, petition is
disposed of by taking on record the stand of the Respondent that the
Leave Policy is available on the website of the Respondent and can be
easily accessed by the workmen employed with the Respondent.
8. In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in
the present petition.
JYOTI SINGH, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2020/rd
