Delhi High Court
Delhi Parshashan Vikas Vibhag ... vs Chief Electoral Officer & Anr. on 28 September, 2021
$~21 (2021)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28.09.2021
+ LPA 353/2021
DELHI PARSHASHAN VIKAS VIBHAG
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES UNION ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Meghna De, Adv.
versus
CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC for
R-1/GNCTD.
Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Adv. for
R-2/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (Oral):
CM No.33979/2021
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
LPA No.353/2021
CM No.33977/2021[Application filed on behalf of the appellant-union for
interim relief]
CM No.33978/2021[Application filed on behalf of the appellant-union for
taking additional documents on record]
2. Issue notice.
2.1. Mr. Rishikesh Kumar accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1
while Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2.
3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up
for hearing and final disposal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed LPA353/2021 Page 1 of 4
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:03.10.2021
21:23:03
4. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.9.2021, passed by
the learned single judge in W.P.(C.) 10431/2021.
4.1. The appellant-union is aggrieved by the order of the learned single
judge to the extent that, no direction has been issued qua the members of the
appellant-union, which would protect them from coercive action during the
pendency of the industrial dispute. In support of its case, the appellant-union
had relied upon the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 [hereafter referred to as "1947 Act"].
5. Counsel for the appellant-union and respondent no.1 do not dispute
the fact that, the conciliation proceedings are pending before Conciliation
Officer/respondent no.2.
5.1. It appears that, the appellant-union had approached Conciliation
Officer/respondent no.2 on behalf of their members for grant of
regularization and for being paid "equal pay for equal work".
6. The members of the appellant-union have been engaged, from time -
to-time for a block period of 89 days, at one stretch, followed by a break.
This process has, concededly, continued for quite some time.
6.1 To be noted, the appellant-union, at the moment, represents 13 persons.
7. Ms. Meghna De, who appears for the appellant-union, in support of
her plea, has relied upon Annexures "P-4" and "A-3".
7.1. A perusal of the aforesaid documents, prima facie, seems to establish
that, the members of the appellant-union are engaged for 89 days, followed
by a break, as noticed above, only to be engaged thereafter for another 89
days.
7.2. The record also shows that, some of the members of the appellant-
union have continued to be engaged in this manner since 2008. There are
others, who were engaged in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016; while some
Signature Not Verified members have been engaged in more recent time.
Digitally Signed LPA353/2021 Page 2 of 4
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:03.10.2021
21:23:03
8. Mr. Kumar says that, the persons, who are before the Conciliation
Officer i.e., Conciliation Officer/respondent no.2, are not workmen, and that
they are civil defence volunteers.
9. Therefore, according to Mr. Kumar, an issue has been raised, as
regards the appellant-union triggering the jurisdiction of the Conciliation
Officer/respondent no.2 under the 1947 Act.
9.1. Besides this, Mr. Kumar says that, there is also an issue, concerning
the territorial jurisdiction which requires examination.
9.2. According to us, these are the matters, which would have to be
addressed by the appropriate forum.
10. Since conciliation proceedings are on, we have asked Mr. Kumar as to
whether respondent no.1 intends to disengage the members, who are
presently represented by the appellant-union.
10.1. Mr. Kumar, on instructions, says that, pending resolution of the
industrial dispute, the disengagement of the members of the appellant-union,
who are currently before this Court, will not be carried out. In other words,
status quo with regard to engagement would continue, till the industrial
dispute is resolved, one way or the other.
11. Thus, having regard to the statement made by Mr. Kumar, the instant
appeal is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The Conciliation Officer/respondent no.2 will endeavour to
dispose of the matter at the earliest, though not later than 31.12.2021.
(ii) In case, there is no resolution/settlement, arrived at between the
parties, the appellant-union will be at liberty to take recourse to an
appropriate remedy, as provided in law.
(iii) The status quo with regard to the engagement, as regard
members of the appellant-union, who are presently before us, would
Signature Not Verified continue, till the industrial dispute is resolved.
Digitally Signed LPA353/2021 Page 3 of 4
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:03.10.2021
21:23:03
(iv) In case, the issue with regard to the jurisdiction is pressed by
respondent no.1, the appropriate forum will decide the same, after
hearing the contesting parties.
11.1. Needless to add that, the merits of the case will not be impacted by
the directions issued by us hereinabove. The above directions have been
issued only to maintain status quo, during the pendency of the industrial
dispute.
12. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside.
13. Consequently, pending applications shall also stand closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
TALWANT SINGH, J.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2021/pmc
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:03.10.2021
21:23:03
