North Delhi Power Ltd. v. Delhi State Electricity Workers Union
In the High Court of Delhi
CS(OS) 419/2012
Before Justice G.S. Sistani
Decided on February 03, 2014

Relevancy of the case: Validity of informing about strikes through email under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Section 22)
• The Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (Rule 7)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The plaintiff, Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited, supplies electricity to North and North West Delhi.
• On February 14, 2012, the first defendant sent an email to the plaintiff to call for a strike under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workers’ union claimed the strike to be in support of other trade unions and federations on strike on February 28, 2012.
• The plaintiff has filed the present suit to seek a permanent injunction and a declaration that the call for strike was illegal and void. They further sought a permanent injunction against the defendants from going on any further strikes in the future.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the call for strike was not related to the plaintiff, nor was it a grievance against the plaintiff. Thus, it was void under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Furthermore, they argued that the defendants cannot call for a strike in the future in any capacity as per Rule 7 of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. They also argue that there is no fundamental right to strike.
• The defendant’s counsel argued that the present suit was infructuous. There had been no strike in the past two years. Moreover, the defendants did not contemplate the same now. Further, the counsel submitted that if they went on strike in the future, they would follow the law as per Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Opinion of the Bench

• The bench agreed with the defendant counsel’s submission that the suit was infructuous.
• Furthermore, if the defendants went on strike in the future, they would do so in compliance with the law, and the plaintiff would have the right to take recourse against it.

Final Decision

• The bench disposed of the suit.

Arnav Kaman, an undergraduate student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, prepared this case summary during his internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2024.