[ad_1]
North Delhi Energy Ltd. v. Delhi State Electrical energy Employees UnionIn the Excessive Court docket of DelhiCS(OS) 419/2012Before Justice G.S. SistaniDecided on February 03, 2014
Relevancy of the case: Validity of informing about strikes by means of e mail underneath Part 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Statutes and Provisions Concerned
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Part 22)
The Central Civil Service (Conduct) Guidelines, 1964 (Rule 7)
Related Information of the Case
The plaintiff, Tata Energy Delhi Distribution Restricted, provides electrical energy to North and North West Delhi.
On February 14, 2012, the primary defendant despatched an e mail to the plaintiff to name for a strike underneath Part 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employees’ union claimed the strike to be in help of different commerce unions and federations on strike on February 28, 2012.
The plaintiff has filed the current go well with to hunt a everlasting injunction and a declaration that the decision for strike was unlawful and void. They additional sought a everlasting injunction in opposition to the defendants from occurring any additional strikes sooner or later.
Outstanding Arguments by the Advocates
The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the decision for strike was not associated to the plaintiff, nor was it a grievance in opposition to the plaintiff. Thus, it was void underneath Part 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Moreover, they argued that the defendants can’t name for a strike sooner or later in any capability as per Rule 7 of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Guidelines, 1964. In addition they argue that there isn’t any basic proper to strike.
The defendant’s counsel argued that the current go well with was infructuous. There had been no strike previously two years. Furthermore, the defendants didn’t ponder the identical now. Additional, the counsel submitted that in the event that they went on strike sooner or later, they might comply with the legislation as per Part 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Opinion of the Bench
The bench agreed with the defendant counsel’s submission that the go well with was infructuous.
Moreover, if the defendants went on strike sooner or later, they might achieve this in compliance with the legislation, and the plaintiff would have the precise to take recourse in opposition to it.
Ultimate Determination
The bench disposed of the go well with.
Arnav Kaman, an undergraduate scholar at Rajiv Gandhi Nationwide College of Regulation, Punjab, ready this case abstract throughout his internship with The Cyber Weblog India in January/February 2024.
[ad_2]
Source link
