W.P.(C)/9216/2018 of RAKESH KUMAR Vs EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 9216/2018

RAKESH KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Bhanu Sanoriya with Mr. Parikshit Goyal, Advs.

versus

EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, St. Counsel for EDMC.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R R% 09.07.2019

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“a)Issue writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/order/direction of like nature thereby quashing the Resolution no.58 passed by Standing Committee, Shahdara (South) Zone, EDMC on 29.09.2017 insofar as Clause no.4 of the policy dated 04.09.2017 regarding recognition of Employee‟s Union is concerned.

b) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/order/direction of like nature thereby directing the respondents to grant recognition to the Rashtriya Safai Mazdoor Congress on the basis of the results of the

elections declared on 17.04.2018.

c) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

It is the case of the petitioner that on 04.09.2017 proposal of policy regarding recognition of union/association of East Delhi Municipal Corporation (for short ‘EDMC’) was mooted. The proposal formed part of Resolution No. 58 of 29.09.2017. According to him, the proposal was that Union getting 30% or more of the single vote of the total electorate shall be considered recognised. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has secured 37.83 % of the votes and should have been recognised.

On the other hand, Ms. Saroj Bidawat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn my attention to para 3(iv) of the reply which reads as under:-

“(iv) That the averments made in para 3(iv) are wrong and denied. In reply it is submitted that the policy was issued after being passed by Corporation vide Resolution No.58 dated 29.09.2017. It is further submitted that the policy document was not provided to any union before being passed by the Corporation. The said policy after being passed by the Corporation was uploaded on the website of Corporation vide no. 269 dated 8.12.2017 and is available on website from 11/12/2017. It is further submitted that no objections were raised by any union nor received by the Corporation till date of election. As per policy nominations were received in both the zones. As per the result, out of the nominations filled in

both the zones, 9 union qualified in Shah South zone and 7 union qualified in north zone.”

According to her as per the policy decided by the Corporation uploaded on the website of the Corporation on 08.12.2017/11.12.2017, it is clear that recognition shall be granted to the union receiving maximum number of votes. In other words, it is her submission that the proposal made vide letter dated 04.09.2017, was not accepted but the decision was in the following manner:-

“Rejecting the „Guidelines for granting recognition‟ mentioned at point no.4, and in compliance with earlier Resolution no.688 dated 07.11.1963, elections of Union be conducted at both the regional offices and recognition be granted to the union receiving maximum number of votes and the same process be applied to union of all the departments.”

It is noted from the above, the decision was the union receiving maximum number of votes shall be recognised. No rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed. If that be so, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the proposal made for approval of the Corporation cannot be conclusive. The respondents are right in stating that it is on the basis of the number of votes received by the union, recognition was to be granted. It must be held that the impugned order cannot be faulted.

I do not see any merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.

JULY 09, 2019/ak1

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J