The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday stated that the Chandigarh administration was perhaps trying to protect the “real culprits” involved in the powermen’s strike — that had plunged almost all of UT into darkness for hours earlier this week — and directed the Deputy Commissioner, UT Chandigarh, to remain present on March 3, the next hearing date in the matter.
The HC has taken a suo-motu cognizance in the matter wherein a blackout triggered by a strike by members of electricity unions, to protest privatisation of the electricity department, had brought Chandigarh to its knees.
As per the detailed order of the court released on Friday, a copy of the minutes of the meeting convened by the Deputy Commissioner, UT, Chandigarh, on February 23, with the president and members of the governing body of the UT Powermen Union, was placed on record before the HC.
As per the minutes of meeting, the Union had undertaken to call off the strike with effect from 4 PM, on February 23 itself, and to ensure that the staff return to duty forthwith. The union had also decided to hold any further strikes and instead resolve its issues through deliberations with the administration. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner assured the union that a reasonable and sympathetic view would be taken regarding those who join their duties immediately. Those that didn’t would face appropriate action.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli, while hearing the matter, said, “At this stage, and without dilating any further on the minutes of the meeting, we may point out that in the affidavit filed by the Chief Engineer (Electricity) UT, Chandigarh, on Thursday, it was affirmed that those who sabotaged the power transmission apparatus and caused intentional disruption of electricity would be dealt with severely. Further, an FIR against the erring employees/members of the union had been registered, and the Chandigarh Police was in the process of procuring the CCTV footage to identify the actual culprits. Being sensitive to the situation, the UT administration was forced to invoke the provisions of the East Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1947. However, if the affidavit of the Chief Engineer (Electricity), UT, Chandigarh, is juxtaposed with the minutes (ibid), prima facie, the authorities seem to have downplayed the entire event that caused unprecedented power crisis.”
The Bench further said that, “There appears to be a shift in the stance of the Administration, perhaps to shield the actual culprits. This is contrary to the spirit of the decision of the Supreme Court that requires imposition and recovery of costs from those who cause damage to the public property. The Chief Engineer (Electricity), Chandigarh, who appeared before us on Thursday and filed an affidavit (ibid), was not associated in the meeting either.”
The Bench thus ordered, “Before taking any further step or requiring the presence of the Adviser to the Administrator, Chandigarh, in the matter before us, we propose to first hear the Deputy Commissioner in this regard. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh, is directed to remain present in court on the next hearing date, March 3.”