Delhi HC restrains contract staff from protesting near BSES offices
Written by Aneesha Mathur | New Delhi | Updated: June 20, 2015 3:42 am
A day after contract employees of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd held dharnas in south and west Delhi, the discom approached the Delhi High Court, which restrained the employees from holding any protests within 500 metres of any of the offices, complaint centres or other offices of BSES RPL till July 20.
Appearing before the vacation bench of Justice Mukta Gupta, senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog said members of the Delhi Vidyut Board Employee Union and other unions had on Thursday “disrupted” work at the grid station and affected the distribution of electricity by “sabotaging” the premises of the BRPL offices.
Lawyers for the discom also said the workers had held gate meetings outside some BRPL offices and prevented customers from entering the premises and even misbehaved with some. The company alleged that the protesting employees had “used unparliamentary language” with customers, including elderly persons, women and children. According to the company, a few employees who had been suspended recently for indiscipline and corruption had “instigated” the unions. A statement by the BRPL spokesperson said, “Disciplinary action was initiated against a few of our employees (and contractual staff) for gross indiscipline and violating high service standards of the organisation. Unfortunately, in reaction, a few of the disgruntled employees have resorted to illegal disruption of work at certain places in south and west Delhi. The situation has largely been brought under control by active cooperation by our employees and police.” Meanwhile, after the brief hearing, the court issued an ex-parte stay against the unions, observing that the company had made out a prima facie case in its favour. “Consequently, the defendants, its members, officers, agents, employees affiliates etc. are restrained from holding any gate meetings, demonstrations, dharnas, picketing within a radius of 500 metres of any of the offices, complaint centres, working stations, sub-stations, stores etc. of the plaintiff company,” the court said. –