IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLES ACT, 1951 Judgment delivered on: 10th October, 2014 W.P. (C) 2229/2014 INDIAN EXPRESS NEWS PAPERS Represented by: Mr. N.A. Sabastian, Adv. ..... Petitioner 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 subsection (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 subsection (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. Sd/SURESH KAIT, J OCTOBER 10, 2014