NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner Union being aggrieved with the impugned Office Order dtd. 22/4/2021, whereby sub rule (iii) was inserted in Rule 8 of the NEEPCO Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules had assailed the same by way of WP(C) No. 367 of 2021, which is pending judgment before this Court. However, while the matter was situated thus, the respondent No. 2, issued the impugned notice dtd. 22/8/2022, by which the Supervisors and Executives of the respondent Corporation, were given 48 hours to withdraw their membership from the registered Trade Unions, in view of and as per the stipulation of Clause – 8(iii) in the NEEPCO CDA Rules, failing which appropriate action was to be taken against them as per the said Rules. The petitioner herein being aggrieved with the manner in which the impugned order was issued, when in fact, the hearing of the matter concerning Rule 8(iii) was concluding is before this Court by way of this instant writ application.

(2.) Apart from other submissions which have been advanced by Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Kharshiing, learned counsel for the petitioner on the colourable exercise of power by the respondent Corporation in inserting Rule 8(iii), the main contention is that the respondent Corporation, with a view to remove the entire basis of the earlier writ petition i.e., WP(C) No. 367 of 2021, and render it infructuous, had issued the impugned order. It is prayed therefore that the impugned order being totally unwarranted and made with a view, to frustrate the challenge made to the insertion of Rule 8(iii) be set aside and quashed.

(3.) Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. V. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent in reply submits that there is no legal bar to implement Rule 8(iii) and that the respondent Corporation was compelled to issue the notice, as it was necessary to negotiate with the Trade Unions on matters such as Provident Fund and others. It has also been argued that Rule 8(iii) is not a statutory rule and that its inclusion was necessary as all Office Bearers of the Trade Unions were non-workmen, who were holding the interest of other workmen and the Corporation to ransom. It has been lastly contended that this Court had not stayed the operation of Rule 8(iii) and as such, there was no illegality in issuing the impugned order/notice.