W.P. (C) - Delhi District Courts

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