CHAIRMAN, RSEB vs Jagdish Prasad Gupta

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 9.4.1997 made by the D.F. Alwar in Complaint Case No. 379/1996 whereby the D.F. allowed respondent''s complaint against the appellants.

RELEVANT facts are these : Vidyut Karmachari Sangh, Alwar, the respondent, is an association registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. It had applied on 18.8.1994 to the appellants to sanction an electric connection to it at its office near Company Bagh, Alwar. Their application was duly accepted and the appellants required them, through demand notice dated 23.12.1994, to deposit a sum of Rs. 435/- in relation to providing electric connection to it. The respondent duly deposited the aforesaid amount with the appellants on 10.1.1995. They had already submitted the ''L'' form on 28.12.1994. But despite their repeated requests the appellants did not provide an electric connection to them. The association, therefore, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 before the D.F., Alwar on 27.5.1996, through its General Secretary Shri Jagdish Pd. Gupta. The stand taken by the appellants before the Forum was that the premises, wherein the electric connection was required to be provided, was appellant''s own building and, therefore, no electric connection could be sanctioned to the respondent. The D.F. did not approve of such objection of the appellants and held that since the respondent had deposited the fees and other amounts as were required to be deposited by them, it had become a "consumer" within the meaning of the term defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and that not providing an electric connection to it, despite their having deposited the demanded amount, amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The D.F., therefore, allowed the complaint of the respondents and directed the appellants to provide an electric connection to the respondent in their office, as detailed above. Aggrieved by such order of the D.F., the appellants have preferred this appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted, at the very outset, that the respondent was not a recognised trade union and, therefore, cannot maintain the complaint. By certificate of registration of trade union No. 43/1971 issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 17.4.1971, it stands fully proved that the respondent is a registered trade union and as such entitled to maintain a complaint under the Act. The objection raised by the appellants is overruled.

It was next urged that the respondent was a tres-passer in the premises in question, which was owned by the appellants and stood allotted to the Executive Engineer (S & V)/Asstt. Engineer (Vig.), RSEB, Alwar. It was submitted that in view of such facts the electric connection could not be sanctioned to the respondent. This argument too is quite vague and liable to be rejected as such.

BY their letters dated 28.10.1994 and 1.11.1994, the appellants had required the respondent to prove their title to and possession over the premises in question. BY its replies dated 29.10.1994 and 17.12.1994 the respondents had explained that the premises in question belong to them and it had been using the same as its office for the last 23 years without any objection from any quarters. On receipt of such replies from the respondent the appellants, vide their letter dated 28.12.1994 had required the respondent to pay an occupation fee of Rs. 225/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 210/-, as demanded vide a notice dated 28.12.1994 and also to submit an indemnity bond on a stamp paper of Rs. 22.50, so that the electric connection could be released in its favour. The respondent had deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs. 435/- vide receipt No. 24942/49 dated 10.1.1995 and had also submitted the required indemnity bond on stamp paper of Rs. 22.50. It is thus clear that the respondent had acted in accordance with the directions of the appellant in depositing the amount of the demand notice, accupation fee and submitting the indemnity bond, executed by its General Secretary in favour of the appellants. On such facts the D.F. could have reasonably held that the question of title to the property was not required to be gone into by the Forum and that since the appellant themselves had agreed to provide an electric connection to the respondent, they were required to honour their commitment to the respondent. Therefore, no question of unlawful occupation of the respondent arose for any consideration by the D.F. and the D.F. has not gone into such question. We, thus, find no force in the objection raised before us. It was next urged that Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta had no authority to file the complaint for and on behalf of the association. In this behalf a reference to the resolution accepted by the Association in its 25th annual meeting, held on 3.10.1996, electing Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta as its General Secretary, may be conveniently made. In view of such evidence the objection raised has no substance.

LASTLY, it was urged that the D.F. has directed for providing a temporary connection to the respondent for 3 months only and such period had expired long before. Thus, there was no sense in requiring the appellants to provide an electric connection to the respondent. Such objection carries no weight and is to be dismissed outrightly. It is quite evident on perusal of the averments made in the complaint that the respondent had asked for the relief of providing an electric connection to them in their office. Such relief was granted by the D.F. to them. The appellants were required to provide the electric connection to the respondent accordingly but, instead of complying with the order of the Forum, they chose to prefer this appeal. Appellants'' act of filing an appeal against the impugned order would not deprive the respondent of the relief granted by the D.F. to them. The objection raised is rejected. In the result, this appeal has no force and is dismissed accordingly with cost on parties. Appeal dismissed.