1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON:
29.11.2018
DELIVERED ON:
06.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.23427 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.27342 of 2018
The Management of SNY Autotech Pvt Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director,
Survey No.297, 300, 301,
Sugamtharumpedu Village Road,
Irrungattukotai,
Sriperumbudur Taluk - 602 117. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
C1 Police Station,
Sriperumbudur - 602 105.
2.United Labour Federation,
149, Thambu Chetty Street,
C.J.Complex, 4th Floor,
Chennai - 600 001. .. Respondents
PRAYER: To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent
to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to enable the
willing workmen, contract workmen, staff, officers and other
managerial personnel and customers to enter and exit the factory
premises, to enable the petitioner to send materials to its
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
customers, to receive the materials including raw materials fr
process work inside the petitioner factory premises, (ingress and
egress of men and materials), and ensure that the striking workmen
are 500 meters away from the main gate of the factory premises
and to maintain law and order and peace in and around the
petitioner's factory premises situated at Survey No.297, 300, 301
Sugamtharumpedu Village Road, Irrungattukotai, Sriperumbudur
Taluk - 602 117.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Nehru
For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, APP for R1
Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel
for K.Sudalai Kannu for R2
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by the Management of SNY
Autotech Pvt. Ltd. for a direction to the first respondent police to
provide adequate police protection to the petitioner company to
enable the willing workmen, staff, officers and other managerial
personnel and customers to enter and exit the factory premises, to
enable the petitioner to send materials to its customers, to receive
the materials including raw materials for process wok inside the
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
petitioner factory premises. In short, the petitioner has sought for
police protection for free ingress and egress of men and materials.
2.The case of the petitioner is that at the instigation of the
second respondent union, the workmen and trainees of the
company indulged in a strike from 31.08.2018 onwards.
Subsequently, the strike intensified and the striking workmen
started sitting right outside the factory premises and they also
indulged in switching off CCTV cameras installed in the factory
premises and virtually disabled the office staff, executives and other
willing workmen to enter into the factory and thereby severely
impacted manufacturing activities of the petitioner company. It is
the further case of the petitioner that the workmen involved in the
strike have also stolen critical components and also programmes
relating to high precision machines installed in the factory premises.
3.It is the further case of the petitioner that since the situation
was going out of control, the petitioner company lodged a complaint
to the first respondent police on 04.09.2018. The minimum police
force was deputed to the factory premises. However in view of the
overwhelming crowd involved in the strike, the police men deputed
were not in a position to take control of the situation. Therefore, it
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
let down to a complete breakdown of law and order and industrial
peace in and around the factory premises.
4.Under such circumstances, this writ petition was filed before
this Court seeking for the above mentioned relief.
5.The above writ petition came up for admission and hearing
on 10.09.2018. Even at the time of admission, the learned counsel
representing the second respondent union took notice and the
matter was adjourned to 11.09.2018. This Court after hearing the
respective counsel, found that the prima facie case has been made
out and therefore directed the first respondent police to provide
police protection to the petitioner company to ensure free ingress
and egress of men and materials and permitted the respondent
union to hold their demonstration 200 meters away from the factory
premises. Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time and
the interim order granted by this Court was also extended. In the
mean time, the second respondent union filed their counter affidavit
and the petitioner also filed a reply affidavit for the counter filed by
the second respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
6.This Court also directed the first respondent police to file a
report regarding the situation that was prevailing near the factory
premises before the interim order was passed by this court granting
police protection. The first respondent police has also filed a report
before this Court.
7.The learned senior counsel Mr.S.Ravindran appearing for the
counsel representing the petitioner, made the following submissions:
● The second respondent union had raised certain disputes
regarding services of certain trainees, shifting of certain
employees and certain charter of demands and the
conciliation proceedings are going on before the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram.
● From 01.09.2018 onwards, 17 trainees abstained from work
and from 04.09.2018, the other workmen also joined them
and indulged in strike. Therefore according to the learned
senior counsel, the illegal strike was called by the workmen
on their own, without any provocation on the side of the
petitioner and more particularly when the conciliation
proceedings were pending.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
● The striking workmen unauthorizedly switched off CCTV
camera and also removed certain critical tools from the
machines and also deleted certain important programmes
that were already available in the machines and thereby
attempted to completely stall the manufacturing activity of
the petitioner company and based on the police complaint
given by the petitioner, an F.I.R. was registered and one
person was arrested and tools were recovered from him. In
this regard, the learned senior counsel submitted that
disciplinary proceedings have initiated against 15 workmen
and charge memo has already been issued to them.
● Since the strike is illegal and the striking workmen were
virtually posing a threat to the peaceful atmosphere of the
factory and attempting to create a law and order problem
and forcibly stopping the free ingress and egress of men
and materials, the petitioner company had no other
alternative except to approach this Court seeking for police
protection.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
● He further submitted that the second respondent union do
not have the right to prevent the willing workers from going
to work and this illegal strike cannot be taken advantage of
to paralyse the entire manufacturing activity of the
petitioner company and the petitioner company cannot be
held to a ransom and pressurised to meet the demands of
the second respondent union.
● The learned senior counsel also relied upon the following
judgments in order to substantiate his arguments.
(a)Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management of
Usha Breco Limited and another reported in (2008) 5
SCC 554
(b)Railway Board, New Delhi and another Vs. Niranjan
Singh reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 966
(c)AVTEC Limited Power Products Division rep. by its
Authorised Signatory and Deputy General Manager
(HR) Vs. The Superintendent of Police and others
reported in MANU/TN/0402/2008.
(d)Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes
and others reported in 2018 (1) LLN 709 (DB) (HP).
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
(e)Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation, Ltd., Vs.
Superintendent of Police, St. Thomas Mount, Madras –
16 reported in 1987 SCC Online Mad 339 : (1987) 2
LLN 294.
8.Per contra, Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the learned counsel representing the second
respondent, made the following submissions:
● The petitioner company had engaged 120 workers to work
in the factory, out of which 58 workers are treated as direct
workmen and the remaining are treated as contract labour
and there is no order of appointment given to the workers
and no workmen has been confirmed till date. Therefore a
charter of demands was raised by the second respondent
union and the same is pending conciliation before the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Sriperumbudur,
Kanchipuram.
● When the workers reported for work on 03.09.2018, nearly
18 workers were stopped at the gate and were refused
employment. This act of the petitioner company, according
to the learned senior counsel, will amount to an illegal
http://www.judis.nic.in
9
lockout under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the
strike that was called for by the second respondent union
against the illegal lockout, is a legal strike and the same
cannot be prevented by using police force, in the strength
of obtaining an interim order from this Court.
● The second respondent had strictly complied with the
directions given by this Court in its order dated 11.09.2018
by continuing the protest 200 meters away from the
petitioner factory. But however taking advantage of the
same, the petitioner company has started employing new
workers and thereby the petitioner company has mis-used
the interim order passed by this Court and has indulged in
unfair labour practise.
● The petitioner company with the help of police force is
breaking a legal strike and the discretionary remedy of this
Court is being mis-used. The learned senior counsel would
submit that the second respondent union will continue to
comply with the orders of this Court by remaining 200
meters away from the factory premises, provided that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
10
petitioner company gives an assurance that no new workers
will be engaged in the factory and if at all, there are willing
workmen to attend work, it must be based on the register
maintained by the petitioner company, which will contain
the list of workers who were employed as on 31.08.2018
and only those workmen whose names are found in the
register and are willing to go and work, should be permitted
to enter the factory to work and in the guise of obtaining a
police protection, a legal strike should not be prevented,
unless there is real law and order problem.
● There is absolutely no averment in the affidavit filed in
support of the writ petition to show that the workmen were
indulging in violence or are taking law into their own hands
and the police complaint that has been given against certain
workmen as if they have stolen certain components and
deleted certain programmes from the machines which is
totally false and such an incident never happened in the
factory premises.
● The learned senior counsel also submitted that the right of
collective bargaining, to ensure that the workmen are not
http://www.judis.nic.in
11
exploited, cannot be jeoparadised by approaching this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and by
seeking for polioce protection and this Court should not as a
matter of routine pass orders granting police protection,
without being satisfied that there is a real law and order
problem situation and there is a volatile atmosphere
prevailing on the ground.
● The real dispute is a private dispute between the petitioner
company and the second respondent and under normal
circumstances a writ petition will not be maintainable.
However, by showing the police as a party, writ petitions are
being filed before this Court seeking for police protection.
This according to the learned senior counsel must be kept in
mind while this Court entertains writ petitions of this nature.
● The learned senior counsel categorically stated that the
second respondent union will not prevent the management
staff or the executives entering into the factory premises.
The learned senior counsel also ensured that the ingress
and egress of materials will also not be prevented by the
http://www.judis.nic.in
12
second respondent union. He further assures that the
willing workmen whose names are found in the register
maintained by the petitioner company, as on 31.08.2018,
will not be prevented from going to work (However the
learned senior counsel added that there was no such willing
workmen who are going for work to the factory) and the
second respondent union will remain 200 meters away from
the factory premises, provided the petitioner company does
not engage the services of any new workmen from outside
and thereby break a legal strike and indulge in unfair labour
practise. In short, the leaned senior counsel submitted that
the discretionary order passed by this Court should not be
mis-used by the petitioner management with the help of
police force.
● The learned senior counsel in order to substantiate his
submissions relied upon the following judgments.
(a)United Labour Federation Vs. Government of Tamil
Nadu and others reported in 2013 SCC Online Mad
1857.
http://www.judis.nic.in
13
(b)W.A.No.1429 of 2018 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 dated
20.08.2013 of this Court.
9.This Court has carefully bestowed its attention to the
elaborate submissions made by the learned senior counsel
appearing on either side and also the pleadings and materials placed
before this Court in the above writ petition.
10.An Industrial strike injures not only the party against
whom it is directed but the society as a whole. The larger the
number of workers involved the longer the duration of strike and the
more essential a commodity or service is the more widespread will
be the effects of strike. Industrial strikes entail both economic as
well as non-economic costs for the employer. The economic losses
caused by a strike may be serious. The financial loss of a project is
only one among its various losses. When the production stops and
the sales go down, the market is captured by rival concerns and the
concern’s goodwill may be lost. Besides additional expenditure
incurred in protecting the plant and taking other steps to deal with
the effects of strike. A lot of money is wasted in the efforts made by
both the labour and management in projecting their respective
http://www.judis.nic.in
14
images. Industrial workers too have to undergo severe hardship due
to loss of wages. The union funds get exhausted and it may become
difficult for the workers to make their both ends meet. The employer
forfeits his profit during the strike period. Although strikes are based
on genuine grievances, they have partially paralyzed administration
and disturbed the pace of planning and development. India can illafford
such breaks and situation which retard the plan process and
over all development. To weigh up the gains and losses of a strike is
like weighing up the gains and losses of any other kind of warfare.
On the employers side the immediate losses are idle capital, loss of
profits, the delaying of orders and loss of goodwill as well as the
possible incurring of insurance or strike breaking expenses while on
the workers side there is loss of wages, the contracting of debts and
all the personal hardships that may be involved. The strike weapon
penalizes every one of the workers more than the employer at
whom it is aimed. Apart from their effects on the particular workers
and employer concerned, strikes have an appreciable effect upon
the economy in general.
11.Unfair Practices in Collective Bargaining are sometimes
resorted to both by employers and trade unions. They are liable to
http://www.judis.nic.in
15
hamper the development of collective bargaining and embitter
negotiations so much by the suspicion and distrust they cause as to
make agreements difficult to reach. It cannot be sufficiently
emphasized that only in an atmosphere of mutual recognition and
respect device Collective Bargaining have a reasonable chance of
success.
12.The commonly used terms of strike are (1) legal strike (2)
illegal strikes that are prohibited under sections 22, 23 of the
Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. A particular strike may have more
than one classification a strike may be legal yet unjustified or it may
be illegal but justified. A strike, legal or illegal, justified or
unjustified does not dissolve the employer-employee relationship.
The right for strikes are in no way abridged by temporary
replacements and they are entitled to wages for the strike period, if
the strike is a justified one. Workers going on strike always regard
the justification of their demands as supreme. Therefore it is left to
the courts to search for its justifiability or un- justifiability. For once
their strike succeeds no flow of consequences legal or otherwise. It
is only from unsuccessful strikes that consequences flow.
http://www.judis.nic.in
16
13.Unfortunately in this Country, the available legislations,
has not kept pace with the change in times. The concept of a person
working in a particular establishment or a company permanently, is
no more in existence. Right from the highest executives to the
lowest level of workmen, they keep change in their jobs from one
establishment to another always looking for greener pasteures. That
apart, the technology keps changing at a rapid pace and unless a
person upgrades himself consistently at some stage he may become
irrelevant and soon become a dead wood. Due to the prevailing
laws, many employers do not want to have a permanent work force
and are resorting to contract labour. The foreign investors who
wants to set-up business / factories in India, are not in a position to
understand how the Industrial Laws work in this Country and he
feels that the prevailing laws do not in any way help Industrial
growth. For instance, Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
provides that no employer, who proposes to effect any change in
the conditions of service applicable to any workmen in respect of
any matter specified in the 4th Schedule, shall effect such change
without the consent of the workmen. The list provided under
Schedule 4 is so exhaustive that virtually for bringing about any
http://www.judis.nic.in
17
change or withdrawing any allowances / concessions, can never be
done without the consent of the workmen. The question is how will
a provision of this nature suit the present day scenario where every
other day, the technology changes and consequently the demand
and supply position also changes.
14.In short, the Industrial laws available in this Country has
become archaic and unfortunately it has not changed with the fast
changing environment in the industry. The law which does not meet
the needs of the change in times and remains static, will prove to be
more a hindrance than be of any help both to the employer and the
employee. We have already reached such a stage. Unfortunately the
legislature, in spite of being aware of the situation, has not chosen
to re-vamp the Industrial laws and for reasons best known to them,
continue to cling to the out dated, absolete and out moded
Industrial laws.
15.All the above discussions, may look beyond the scope of
this writ petition. However, this Court took the pain of expressing its
mind on the prevailing Industrial laws, since the dispute involved in
the present case, could have been easily handled, with an updated
http://www.judis.nic.in
18
Industrial legislation. This case is only a sample for the over all
situation that is prevailing in various Industrial establishments,
throughout India. If the law could have given a speedy solution to
the pending dispute between the petitioner management and the
second respondent union, one way or the other, the present
situation would not have arisen.
16.Conciliation proceedings are pending before the concerned
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram for
more than five months without a solution and no one is in a position
to raise the dispute. In view of the requirement under Industrial
Disputes Act that there must be a failure report sent to the
appropriate Government and thereafter the appropriate
Government has to make a reference under Section 10 to the
concerned Labour Court and only thereafter the dispute goes to an
Adjudicatory body. In the mean time, the misunderstanding and
mistrust between the parties keep growing and results in a
situation, as we find in this case. On the one hand, the management
is complaining that the striking workmen are bringing the entire
manufacturing process to a stand still and are armtwisting the
management to meet their demands. On the other hand, the union
http://www.judis.nic.in
19
is complaining stating that there is a illegal lockout and therfore
there is a legal strike and the management is trying to break the
strike with the use of police force and is also complaining that the
orders of this Court are mis-used and new workmen are brought in
to the factory in the place of the striking workmen, by taking
advantage of the orders passed by this Court, wherein this Court
had directed the police to ensure that the striking workmen are kept
200 meters away from the factory.
17.It is a settled principle of law that this Court cannot go into
the disputed questions of fact while exercising its Jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless the facts are
apparent on the face of the record. Strictly speaking all the
contentions raised by the competing parties, are factual in nature.
This Court in excise of its Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot give any finding regarding the issues
raised by both the parties with regard to the lockout, strike,
whether they are legal or illegal, whether there is unfair labour
practise, whether new workers are brought in, in the place of the
striking workers, etc., and these are all issues beyond the scope of
this writ petition. In fact, these are interse disputes between the
http://www.judis.nic.in
20
petitioner and the second respondent, which cannot be resolved in
this writ petition. Therefore, this Court is not going to render any
finding on these issues and it is left open to the parties to
adjudicate the same before the concerned Authority / Court.
18.The only issue into which this Court can go into in this writ
petition, is to see whether the petitioner company requires a police
protection, on the given facts and circumstances of the case. It will
therefore be useful to refer to the following judgments:
(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Railway
Board, New Delhi and another Vs. Niranjan Singh reported in AIR
1969 SCC 966 has held as follows:
"...13.It is true that the freedoms
guaranteed under our Constitution are very
valuable freedoms and this Court would resist
abridging the ambit of those freedoms except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution. The fact
that the citizens of this country have freedom of
speech, freedom to assemble peaceably and
freedom to form- associations or unions does not
mean that they can exercise those freedoms in
whatever place they please. The exercise of those
freedoms will come to an end as soon as the
'right of some- one else to hold his property
intervenes. Such a limitation is inherent in the
exercise of those 'rights. The validity of that
limitation is not to be judged by the tests
prescribed by Sub-Arts. (2) and (3) of Art. 19. In
http://www.judis.nic.in
21
other words the contents of the freedoms
guaranteed under cls.(a), (b) and (c), the only
freedoms with which we are concerned in this
appeal,.do not include the right to exercise them
in the properties belonging to others. If Mr. Garg
is right in his contentions then a citizen of this
country in the exercise of his right under cls. (d)
and (e) of Art. 19(1) could move about freely in a
public-office or even reside there unless there
exists some law imposing reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of those rights.
(ii)This Court in AVTEC Limited Power Products Division rep.
by its Authorised Signatory and Deputy General Manager (HR) Vs.
The Superintendent of Police and others reported in
MANU/TN/0402/2008 has held as follows:
"...15.Even assuming that the strike
resorted to by the members of the 4th respondent
Union is valid in law, it does not mean that the 4th
respondent and its members can indulge in any
violent activities. If it is the grievance of the 4th
respondent and its members that there is breach
of any agreement, it is always open to them to
raise a dispute under the Industrial Disputes
Act and the right to strike is not to increase
pressure on the employer by violent means. The
concept of collective bargain even though enables
the workmen to take concerted act for achieving
their demands through legal means, the same can
never be permitted to enable the workers to
indulge in violent activities. A reference to various
complaints and counter complaints given by both
sides as submitted by the learned Government
Advocate shows that all is not well with the 4th
respondent and its Union members. The collective
bargain is not to show strength by violence but the
same has to be shown by legal means alone.
http://www.judis.nic.in
22
17.Even under the Trade Unions Act, 1926,
the members of the Union are certainly not
permitted to involve in violent activities. In such
circumstances, giving police protection to factory
by this Court in exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
unknown. It was in K.C.P.Ltd., vs. Inspector of
Police, Tiruvottiyur & Others (1993 (1) L.L.J. 365),
in similar circumstance, when the employer has
obtained an injunction order from the civil Court,
the question arose as to whether this Court can
issue Writ of Mandamus for police protection by
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. This Court
(K.S.Bakthavatsalam,J.) while considering large
number of case laws on the issue, including a
Division Bench judgement of this Court in
Coimbatore Periyar District Motor Transport
Munnetra Sangam (by President) vs. Sivakumar
Transports, Tiruppur and others (99 Law Weekly
409) and Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation
Ltd., (by its Law Officer and Constituted, Attorney
N.K. Mandal) vs. Superintendent of Police,
St.Thomas Mount, Madras (1987 II LLN 294) and
rejecting the claim of the learned counsel for the
Union therein that no Mandamus can be issued for
police protection, held as follows:
"11. ......... Considering the issue in this case, I
am of the view that with regard to the order of Sri
Lanka Sugar Corporation of Colombo, the nondespatch
of the Articles would affect the interest
of the nation, especially the international market.
So also, with regard to the despatch of the Articles
to the Challapalli Sugars Ltd., at Lakshmipuram
unit, ( I am of the view ) the interest of the nation
and industrial growth are more important than the
interest of handful of workers. Taking the view
that the request made in this case would come
http://www.judis.nic.in
23
within the reasoning of the Division Bench of this
Court, cited supra, I am of the opinion that the
police protection should be ordered. ..... "
18.A specific reference was also made on the
judgement of Mohan,J.(as he then was) in Mining
and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd., (by its Law
Officer and Constituted, Attorney N.K. Mandal) vs.
Superintendent of Police, St.Thomas Mount,
Madras (1987 II LLN 294), wherein it was held
that a negative approach of lawful agitation by the
working class cannot be justified by resorting to
law and order problem in the industrial sector,
which is as follows:
"Strikes, lock-outs, satyagrahas and
demonstrations are nothing new in our country.
Promotion of social justice over the past few
decades was, to a considerable extent, due to
militant and agitational approach of the workmen
and not, to any appreciable degree, due to
condescension by the management. It is but true
that in the process of securing to the workmen
more amenities and privileges and better
conditions of service, the Industrial Tribunals,
Labour Courts, and the Courts of this Country
have played a vital role. A negative approach to
lawful agitation by the working class to secure
higher wages and better living conditions cannot
be justified by resort to the plea of maintaining
law and order in the industrial sector."
19. The jurisdiction of this Court in granting a Writ
of Mandamus by directing the police to give
protection to the management to carry on lawful
trade was again reiterated by the Division Bench
of Kerala High Court in Midland Rubber & Produce
Co.Ltd., Cochin vs. Superintendent of Police,
Pathanamthitta & Others (1999 (1) L.L.J. 385),
wherein AR.Lakshmanan,J. (as he then was) while
presiding over the Bench, has held as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in
24
"8. ........ Just as the workers are entitled to
protection of their legal rights by Courts of law,
the employers are also equally entitled to
protection of their fundamental right to carry on
their lawful trade or business. In our opinion it is
not open to the respondents-Unions to take the
law their own hands and obstruct the Permanent
workers of the appellant from discharging their
duties or prevent the appellant from doing the rain
guarding work. Sufficient safeguards are provided
under the Industrial Disputes Act to prevent
exploitation of workers by employers. It is strange
to find that one set of workers claimed right to get
employment on the basis of some practice and
preventing the employer from engaging labour of
their choice. If the claim of the labour is allowed,
then a day will come when a citizen of this
Country has to seek his employment in his own
village, taluk or district. Such a claim would run
counter to the rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the right now
claimed by the respondents on the basis of some
practice cannot be countenanced at all."
20. In view of the above settled position of law, I
do not think that the facts of this case will be
covered under Section 18 of the Trade Unions
Act,1926. Section 18(1) of the Trade Unions
Act,1926 certainly prohibits the employer from
breaking the contract of employment and it gives
immunity to an office bearer in respect of the act
done by him. When the employer attempts to
divide the striking workers, which is lawful, it is
certainly open to the 4th respondent Union and its
members to approach the Inspector of Factories or
raise an industrial dispute by treating the same as
unfair labour practice, etc. and the immunity
granted under Section 18(1) of the Act cannot
mean to say that the Union must be permitted to
achieve its object by resorting to the method
which are not permitted in law.
http://www.judis.nic.in
25
(iii) The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the judgment of
the Division Bench in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel
Tubes and others reported in 2018 (1) LLN 709 (DB) (HP) has held
as follows:
"...7. Ordinarily, the Members of Trade
Unions and Industrial Workers covered by the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
Industrial Employees Standing Orders,
1946, Trade Union Act, 1926 and host of other
legislations can resort to strike as one of the
modes of recognized form of expression.
However, the strikers must obey civilized
norms in the battle and not be vulgar or
violent hoodlums.
9.That apart, the right to strike is not
absolute under the Industrial jurisprudence
and restrictions have been placed on it, by
virtue of Sections 10(3), 10-A(4-A), 22, 23
and 24 of the Act, as was observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.R. Singh Vs. Union
of India, 1989 4 SCC 710 in the following
terms:-
"15. Counsel for TFAI also strongly contended
that since the strike was illegal, the workers
are not entitled to any relief. We see no merit
in this submission. The right to form
associations or unions is a fundamental right
under Article 19(l)(c) of the
Constitution. Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act
provides for registration of a trade union if all
the requirements of the said enactment are
fulfilled. The right to form associations and
unions and provide for their registration was
recognized obviously for conferring certain
http://www.judis.nic.in
26
rights on trade unions. The necessity to form
unions is obviously for voicing the demands
and grievances of labour.
Trade unionists act as mouthpieces of labour.
The strength of a trade union depends on its
membership. Therefore, trade unions with
sufficient membership strength are able to
bargain more effectively with the
managements. This bargaining power would
be considerably reduced if it is not permitted
to demonstrate. Strike in a given situation is
only a form of demonstration. There are
different modes of demonstrations, e.g., goslow,
sit-in, work-to-rule, absenteeism, etc.,
and strike is one such mode of demonstration
by workers for their rights. The right to
demonstrate and, therefore, the right to strike
is an important weapon in the armoury of the
workers. This right has been recognised by
almost all democratic countries. Though not
raised to the high pedestal of a fundamental
right, it is recognised as a mode of redress for
resolving the grievances of workers. But the
right to strike is not absolute under our
industrial jurisprudence and restrictions have
been placed on it. These are to be found
in Sections 10(3), 10-A(4-A), 22 and 23 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act" for
short). Section 10(3) empowers the
appropriate government to prohibit the
continuance of a strike if it is in connection
with a dispute referred to one of the fora
created under the said statute. Section 10-
A(4-A) confers similar power on the
appropriate government where the industrial
dispute which is the cause of the strike is
referred to arbitration and a notification in that
behalf is issued under Section 10-A(3-A).
These two provisions have no application to
the present case since it is nobody's
http://www.judis.nic.in
27
contention that the Union's demands have
been referred to any forum under the statute."
10. Thus, it is established that right of
strike as part of collective bargaining is
recognized in law only so long as it is peaceful.
There is no scope for violence. Workmen
cannot be permitted to take law into their own
hands. The striking employees/workmen etc.
must obey the civilized norms in the battle,
desist from using vulgar and intimidating
language; indulge in violent acts or acts which
may subversive to the discipline of the
industrial undertaking/company etc.
11.It is equally settled that the right to
freedom of speech and expression is
guaranteed under the Constitution of India,
but the same is subject to reasonable
restrictions as enshrined under Article 19 of
the Constitution of India. The Trade Unions or
their office bearers can resort to
demonstration/dharna but that would be
subject to the law of land. The same can be
carried out only in a peaceful manner and not
in a manner that would stop the working of
the management. The management has every
right to ensure that its working is not
obstructed. Therefore, a balance necessarily
has to be struck between the competing
interests and to ensure that the work of the
management is not disturbed and at the same
time workmen can also continue with their
activities in a peaceful manner.
13.Adverting to the facts, it would be
noticed that the specific allegations of the
petitioners are that 40 erstwhile workers are
creating hindrance in the execution of the
work and have paralyzed the entire work and
have virtually held the project to ransom
http://www.judis.nic.in
28
which is causing unnecessary delay in the
execution of the project of great significance
and importance, which is detrimental to the
larger public interest. This only goes to show
that these workers have no or scant respect
for the rule of law or else they would have
taken resort to legal remedy."
19. By referring to the above judgments, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even
assuming without admitting that the strike conducted by the second
respondent union is legal and valid in law, the second respondent
union and its members cannot indulge in violent activities and the
concept of collective bargaining should not be extended to the
extent of indulging in violent activities. The learned senior counsel
further submitted that it is open to the second respondent union to
raise an Industrial dispute, if they feel that the act of the petitioner
company will amount to a unfair labour practise. However, that
cannot mean to say that the second respondent will achieve the
said object by resorting to violence. The petitioner company is not
attempting to stop or prevent the second respondent from
continuing the strike, however that does not give a license to the
second respondent union to indulge in violence and stop the free
ingress and egress of men and materials. The learned senior
http://www.judis.nic.in
29
counsel by pointing out to the above said judgments, impressed
upon this Court that the law is well settled in this regard.
20.This Court will now deal with the judgments relied upon by
the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the second
respondent. The judgment in the case of United Labour Federation
Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2013 SCC Online Mad
1857, this Court has held as follows:
"...50. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed with the following directions to the
respondents 1 to 3:
(i) The respondents 1 to 3 shall not interfere in
the industrial dispute so long as the strike is
peaceful. For any reason, if it becomes violent
or it takes the shape of disturbing the law and
order situation or at the instance of the
management there is likelihood of disturbance
to law and order, then, it is for the police
authorities to restore peace and to prevent any
unlawful activities;
(ii) The respondents 1 to 3 shall not aid the
4th respondent from removing or shifting of
machineries, equipments, materials or dyes,
etc., from the factory premises during strike
period with a view to break the strike. It is
further directed that contrary to the
undertaking given by the fourth respondent, if
any machinery or equipment or material or
dyes are removed or attempted to be removed
out of factory premises during strike with a
view to break the strike, and in the event,
http://www.judis.nic.in
30
there is any complaint regarding the same by
workmen, the respondents 1 to 3 shall prevent
the same by swiftly making interference; and
(iii) The respondents 1 to 3 shall not aid the
4th respondent to bring in any person who is
not on the Rolls of the Register of Adult
Workers maintained under the Factories Act as
on 05.12.2012, into the factory to perform the
work earlier performed by the workers who are
on strike.
21.Aggrieved by the above order of the learned Single Jugde,
the management went on an appeal. The Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.1429 of 2013, by order dated 20.08.2013,
confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. The relevant
portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
"...54.Though strictly speaking that the
appellant/fourth respondent in the writ
petition, can induct trainees and unrolled
apprentices, utilisation of their services in the
place of striking workmen as well as the
utilisation of services of managerial staff to
operate the machines clearly amount to unfair
labour practice. Therefore, Question No.2 is
also answered in negative against the
appellant/fourth respondent and in favour of
the first respondent/writ petitioner.
55.The learned Single Judge on an indepth
analysis of the factual aspects and legal
position held that since the Automobile
component Manufacturing Industry is not
http://www.judis.nic.in
31
declared as a public Utility Service, the strike
by the members of the first respondent/writ
petitioner Union, cannot be termed as illegal
and further found that training to the
trainees/apprentices. The learned Single Judge
further found that utilisation of services of 106
employees in the form of management staff,
trainees and apprentices is undoubtedly an
unfair labour practice. This Court finds no
infirmity in the reasons assigned by the
learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge
has also sufficiently protected the interest of
the appellant-management in the event of any
law and order problem.
56.This Court on a careful scrutiny and
appreciation of entire materials placed before
it, is of the considered view that there is no
error apparent in the impugned order, allowing
the writ petition."
22.The management took this case on appeal to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated
03.02.2014, dismissed the SLP as withdrawn.
23.By pointing out to the above judgment, the learned senior
counsel would contend that the petitioner management cannot
interfere in an Industrial dispute so long as the strike is peaceful
and it does not turn violent or disturbs the law and order situation.
The learned senior counsel would further contend that any action on
the part of the petitioner management, which is attempted to break
http://www.judis.nic.in
32
the strike, will amount to an unfair labour practice. The learned
senior counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the direction
given by this Court to the police not to aid the management to bring
in any person not on the rolls of the register maintained under the
Factories Act and impressed upon this Court to give a similar
direction in this writ petition and if that is ensured, the learned
senior counsel would submit that the second respondent will
continue the strike 200 meters away from the factory premises and
the second respondent will not prevent the free ingress and egress
of the executives, management staff and willing workmen, whose
names are found in the rolls of the register, as on 31.08.2018 and
materials.
24.The above direction was given by this Court only after
satisfying itself that the strike in question was a legal strike. At
paragraph 38 of the order of the learned Single Judge, there is a
finding to that effect. The concerned case was filed by the union and
on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was called
upon to decide whether the strike was legal or illegal. The Court
held that the strike was legal and consequently, by relying upon the
5th Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, held that recruitment of
http://www.judis.nic.in
33
workers in the place of the striking workmen, is an unfair labour
practice in terms of entry 12 to 5th Schedule of the Industrial
Disputes Act. In view of that said finding, the learned Judge
proceeded to give a direction to the police as found in Paragraph 50
(iii) of the order which has been extracted supra.
25.In the present case, this Court is not called upon to decide
the nature of the strike conducted by the second respondent. In
view of the rival claims made by either of the parties and since it
involves disputed questions of fact, this Court has already held here
in above that it is not going to go into the said issue. Therefore, this
Court does not want to clothe the police with the power of
monitoring, whether the workmen going into the factory premises is
really a workmen whose name is found in the rolls of the register
maintained by the petitioner management. Therefore, the relief
claimed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the second
respondent, to that effect, is hereby rejected.
26.The only other question that is left to be decided by this
Court is whether the police protection given to the petitioner
company should continue. For this purpose, apart from the
http://www.judis.nic.in
34
averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition,
it will also be very relevant to take note of the report filed by the
first respondent police.
27.The 1st respondent Police in his report has stated as
follows:
" On 04.09.2018 2nd shift employees
started to strike in front of the said Company,
subsequently 1st Shift employees in order join
in strike, suddenly all of them came out from
the Company without giving production
details. When the same was questioned by
Production Manager, they abused him in filthy
language and also threatened him and strike
was conducted in front of entry gate of
Company premises. They found accessories &
Tools in Housing Pully, Wheel Cylinder, Bracket
Machine were missing. On checking the CCTC
Camera, Raghu & Suresh while returned from
work at early morning 12.06 hours they
switched off CCTV Power and they planned
and switched off the power supply to CCTC
Camera and looted the tools from the above
said machineries. Thus he requested to trace
the stolen tools and handover the same to
him. Hence, this complaint. Subsequently,
http://www.judis.nic.in
35
the Company decided to start production work
with available employees.
I submit that based on the said
complaint, CSR was issued ont he same day
vide CSR No.524/2018 and after conducting
due enquiry, he found that the prima facie
case is made out in this matter, a case was
registered in C1 Sriperumpudur PS Crime
No.594/2018 u/s. 147, 294(b), 381, 506(i) &
120(b) IPC dated 22.09.2018 16.00 hours
against Raghu, Suresh & 13 others by
Tr.D.natarajan, the then Inspector of Police
and conducted preliminary investigation and
recorded statement from the
Tr.Parhiban/defacto complainant.
I submit that after taken a charge as
Inspector of Police in C1 Sriperimpudur Police
Station, I took up the case for further
investigation. I arrested the accused on
28.10.2018 Anbarasanand based on his
confession statement, I seized Reamer-3 nos
used for CNC & VMC Machineries from the
accused under cover of seizure mahazar in the
presence of witnesses and thereafter he was
remanded to judicial custody.
http://www.judis.nic.in
36
I submit that on 13.11.2018, I arrested
Raghuraman and recorded his confession
statement and he was remanded to judicial
custody. Remaining 13 accused obtained
Anticipatory bail from this Hon'ble Court vide
Crl.O.P.No.25438/2018 [2] and
Crl.O.P.No.25440/2018 [13] dated 02.11.2018
with certain conditions.
I submit that during the course of
pending investigation the petitioner filed this
writ petition seeking prayer to give police
protection and pass such further orders.
I submit that, from the date of
occurrence i.e., on 04.09.2018, I am giving
police protection to the said Company to
maintain Law and order in and around the
places to run the company peacefully.
I submit that the case is under
investigation. So far the investigation
revealed that
(i)On 04.09.2018, without giving any
prior intimation, 90 employees [1st & 2nd
shift] participated in the strike in front of
http://www.judis.nic.in
37
Company gate by demanding (a) to
permanent the trainees; (b) trainee staff to be
appointed as permanent labour; (c) to
recognize their Union by name "ULF" (d)
expecting attractive Salary and (d) not to
change employees.
(ii) On enquiry conducted with the
petitioner/Management, I came to know that
there are totally 118 employees are working
in the said company [including 90 employees
under strike], Presently 28 permanent
employees are working, so that production will
be decreased, while being so, the petitioner to
increase the production by appointing
temporary employees [40 persons] from their
Vendors Company.
(iii)The Management informed that they
will consider about the employment for the 15
accused in the said FIR, after competition of
investigation and Enquiry of Dy.Commissioner
of Labout at Irrugattukottai.
(iv)Further the Management informed
that the employees those who participated in
the strike, willing to work in their Company as
per their norms, they will ready to accept
http://www.judis.nic.in
38
them to re-join for work.
28.From the above report, it is clear that a normal
atmosphere is not prevailing near the factory premises and there is
an uneasy tension in the air. Therefore, in order to maintain the
law and order and also in order to ensure the free ingress and
egress of men and materials, police protection has to be given to
the petitioner Company, in order to run their day today activities.
29. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
a) The 1st respondent Police shall provide Police Protection to
the factory premises of the petitioner Company to ensure that there
is free ingress and egress of men and materials.
b) The 1st respondent shall ensure that no law and order
problem is created near the factory premises and normalcy is
maintained.
c) The 2nd respondent can conduct the demonstrations/strike,
http://www.judis.nic.in
39
200 mts away from the petitioner's Factory premises.
d) It is left open to the parties to agitate their respective
rights before the appropriate forum/Court and this order will not
have any bearing on the respective rights of parties. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
06.12.2018
krk
Index: yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
http://www.judis.nic.in
40
N.ANAND VENKATESH .J.,
krk
Pre-Delivery Order made in
W.P.No.23427 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.27342 of 2018
Delivered on: 06.12.2018
http://www.judis.nic.in
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON:
29.11.2018
DELIVERED ON:
06.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.23427 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.27342 of 2018
The Management of SNY Autotech Pvt Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director,
Survey No.297, 300, 301,
Sugamtharumpedu Village Road,
Irrungattukotai,
Sriperumbudur Taluk - 602 117. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
C1 Police Station,
Sriperumbudur - 602 105.
2.United Labour Federation,
149, Thambu Chetty Street,
C.J.Complex, 4th Floor,
Chennai - 600 001. .. Respondents
PRAYER: To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent
to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to enable the
willing workmen, contract workmen, staff, officers and other
managerial personnel and customers to enter and exit the factory
premises, to enable the petitioner to send materials to its
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
customers, to receive the materials including raw materials fr
process work inside the petitioner factory premises, (ingress and
egress of men and materials), and ensure that the striking workmen
are 500 meters away from the main gate of the factory premises
and to maintain law and order and peace in and around the
petitioner's factory premises situated at Survey No.297, 300, 301
Sugamtharumpedu Village Road, Irrungattukotai, Sriperumbudur
Taluk - 602 117.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Nehru
For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, APP for R1
Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel
for K.Sudalai Kannu for R2
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by the Management of SNY
Autotech Pvt. Ltd. for a direction to the first respondent police to
provide adequate police protection to the petitioner company to
enable the willing workmen, staff, officers and other managerial
personnel and customers to enter and exit the factory premises, to
enable the petitioner to send materials to its customers, to receive
the materials including raw materials for process wok inside the
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
petitioner factory premises. In short, the petitioner has sought for
police protection for free ingress and egress of men and materials.
2.The case of the petitioner is that at the instigation of the
second respondent union, the workmen and trainees of the
company indulged in a strike from 31.08.2018 onwards.
Subsequently, the strike intensified and the striking workmen
started sitting right outside the factory premises and they also
indulged in switching off CCTV cameras installed in the factory
premises and virtually disabled the office staff, executives and other
willing workmen to enter into the factory and thereby severely
impacted manufacturing activities of the petitioner company. It is
the further case of the petitioner that the workmen involved in the
strike have also stolen critical components and also programmes
relating to high precision machines installed in the factory premises.
3.It is the further case of the petitioner that since the situation
was going out of control, the petitioner company lodged a complaint
to the first respondent police on 04.09.2018. The minimum police
force was deputed to the factory premises. However in view of the
overwhelming crowd involved in the strike, the police men deputed
were not in a position to take control of the situation. Therefore, it
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
let down to a complete breakdown of law and order and industrial
peace in and around the factory premises.
4.Under such circumstances, this writ petition was filed before
this Court seeking for the above mentioned relief.
5.The above writ petition came up for admission and hearing
on 10.09.2018. Even at the time of admission, the learned counsel
representing the second respondent union took notice and the
matter was adjourned to 11.09.2018. This Court after hearing the
respective counsel, found that the prima facie case has been made
out and therefore directed the first respondent police to provide
police protection to the petitioner company to ensure free ingress
and egress of men and materials and permitted the respondent
union to hold their demonstration 200 meters away from the factory
premises. Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time and
the interim order granted by this Court was also extended. In the
mean time, the second respondent union filed their counter affidavit
and the petitioner also filed a reply affidavit for the counter filed by
the second respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
6.This Court also directed the first respondent police to file a
report regarding the situation that was prevailing near the factory
premises before the interim order was passed by this court granting
police protection. The first respondent police has also filed a report
before this Court.
7.The learned senior counsel Mr.S.Ravindran appearing for the
counsel representing the petitioner, made the following submissions:
● The second respondent union had raised certain disputes
regarding services of certain trainees, shifting of certain
employees and certain charter of demands and the
conciliation proceedings are going on before the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram.
● From 01.09.2018 onwards, 17 trainees abstained from work
and from 04.09.2018, the other workmen also joined them
and indulged in strike. Therefore according to the learned
senior counsel, the illegal strike was called by the workmen
on their own, without any provocation on the side of the
petitioner and more particularly when the conciliation
proceedings were pending.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
● The striking workmen unauthorizedly switched off CCTV
camera and also removed certain critical tools from the
machines and also deleted certain important programmes
that were already available in the machines and thereby
attempted to completely stall the manufacturing activity of
the petitioner company and based on the police complaint
given by the petitioner, an F.I.R. was registered and one
person was arrested and tools were recovered from him. In
this regard, the learned senior counsel submitted that
disciplinary proceedings have initiated against 15 workmen
and charge memo has already been issued to them.
● Since the strike is illegal and the striking workmen were
virtually posing a threat to the peaceful atmosphere of the
factory and attempting to create a law and order problem
and forcibly stopping the free ingress and egress of men
and materials, the petitioner company had no other
alternative except to approach this Court seeking for police
protection.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
● He further submitted that the second respondent union do
not have the right to prevent the willing workers from going
to work and this illegal strike cannot be taken advantage of
to paralyse the entire manufacturing activity of the
petitioner company and the petitioner company cannot be
held to a ransom and pressurised to meet the demands of
the second respondent union.
● The learned senior counsel also relied upon the following
judgments in order to substantiate his arguments.
(a)Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management of
Usha Breco Limited and another reported in (2008) 5
SCC 554
(b)Railway Board, New Delhi and another Vs. Niranjan
Singh reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 966
(c)AVTEC Limited Power Products Division rep. by its
Authorised Signatory and Deputy General Manager
(HR) Vs. The Superintendent of Police and others
reported in MANU/TN/0402/2008.
(d)Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes
and others reported in 2018 (1) LLN 709 (DB) (HP).
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
(e)Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation, Ltd., Vs.
Superintendent of Police, St. Thomas Mount, Madras –
16 reported in 1987 SCC Online Mad 339 : (1987) 2
LLN 294.
8.Per contra, Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the learned counsel representing the second
respondent, made the following submissions:
● The petitioner company had engaged 120 workers to work
in the factory, out of which 58 workers are treated as direct
workmen and the remaining are treated as contract labour
and there is no order of appointment given to the workers
and no workmen has been confirmed till date. Therefore a
charter of demands was raised by the second respondent
union and the same is pending conciliation before the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Sriperumbudur,
Kanchipuram.
● When the workers reported for work on 03.09.2018, nearly
18 workers were stopped at the gate and were refused
employment. This act of the petitioner company, according
to the learned senior counsel, will amount to an illegal
http://www.judis.nic.in
9
lockout under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the
strike that was called for by the second respondent union
against the illegal lockout, is a legal strike and the same
cannot be prevented by using police force, in the strength
of obtaining an interim order from this Court.
● The second respondent had strictly complied with the
directions given by this Court in its order dated 11.09.2018
by continuing the protest 200 meters away from the
petitioner factory. But however taking advantage of the
same, the petitioner company has started employing new
workers and thereby the petitioner company has mis-used
the interim order passed by this Court and has indulged in
unfair labour practise.
● The petitioner company with the help of police force is
breaking a legal strike and the discretionary remedy of this
Court is being mis-used. The learned senior counsel would
submit that the second respondent union will continue to
comply with the orders of this Court by remaining 200
meters away from the factory premises, provided that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
10
petitioner company gives an assurance that no new workers
will be engaged in the factory and if at all, there are willing
workmen to attend work, it must be based on the register
maintained by the petitioner company, which will contain
the list of workers who were employed as on 31.08.2018
and only those workmen whose names are found in the
register and are willing to go and work, should be permitted
to enter the factory to work and in the guise of obtaining a
police protection, a legal strike should not be prevented,
unless there is real law and order problem.
● There is absolutely no averment in the affidavit filed in
support of the writ petition to show that the workmen were
indulging in violence or are taking law into their own hands
and the police complaint that has been given against certain
workmen as if they have stolen certain components and
deleted certain programmes from the machines which is
totally false and such an incident never happened in the
factory premises.
● The learned senior counsel also submitted that the right of
collective bargaining, to ensure that the workmen are not
http://www.judis.nic.in
11
exploited, cannot be jeoparadised by approaching this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and by
seeking for polioce protection and this Court should not as a
matter of routine pass orders granting police protection,
without being satisfied that there is a real law and order
problem situation and there is a volatile atmosphere
prevailing on the ground.
● The real dispute is a private dispute between the petitioner
company and the second respondent and under normal
circumstances a writ petition will not be maintainable.
However, by showing the police as a party, writ petitions are
being filed before this Court seeking for police protection.
This according to the learned senior counsel must be kept in
mind while this Court entertains writ petitions of this nature.
● The learned senior counsel categorically stated that the
second respondent union will not prevent the management
staff or the executives entering into the factory premises.
The learned senior counsel also ensured that the ingress
and egress of materials will also not be prevented by the
http://www.judis.nic.in
12
second respondent union. He further assures that the
willing workmen whose names are found in the register
maintained by the petitioner company, as on 31.08.2018,
will not be prevented from going to work (However the
learned senior counsel added that there was no such willing
workmen who are going for work to the factory) and the
second respondent union will remain 200 meters away from
the factory premises, provided the petitioner company does
not engage the services of any new workmen from outside
and thereby break a legal strike and indulge in unfair labour
practise. In short, the leaned senior counsel submitted that
the discretionary order passed by this Court should not be
mis-used by the petitioner management with the help of
police force.
● The learned senior counsel in order to substantiate his
submissions relied upon the following judgments.
(a)United Labour Federation Vs. Government of Tamil
Nadu and others reported in 2013 SCC Online Mad
1857.
http://www.judis.nic.in
13
(b)W.A.No.1429 of 2018 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 dated
20.08.2013 of this Court.
9.This Court has carefully bestowed its attention to the
elaborate submissions made by the learned senior counsel
appearing on either side and also the pleadings and materials placed
before this Court in the above writ petition.
10.An Industrial strike injures not only the party against
whom it is directed but the society as a whole. The larger the
number of workers involved the longer the duration of strike and the
more essential a commodity or service is the more widespread will
be the effects of strike. Industrial strikes entail both economic as
well as non-economic costs for the employer. The economic losses
caused by a strike may be serious. The financial loss of a project is
only one among its various losses. When the production stops and
the sales go down, the market is captured by rival concerns and the
concern’s goodwill may be lost. Besides additional expenditure
incurred in protecting the plant and taking other steps to deal with
the effects of strike. A lot of money is wasted in the efforts made by
both the labour and management in projecting their respective
http://www.judis.nic.in
14
images. Industrial workers too have to undergo severe hardship due
to loss of wages. The union funds get exhausted and it may become
difficult for the workers to make their both ends meet. The employer
forfeits his profit during the strike period. Although strikes are based
on genuine grievances, they have partially paralyzed administration
and disturbed the pace of planning and development. India can illafford
such breaks and situation which retard the plan process and
over all development. To weigh up the gains and losses of a strike is
like weighing up the gains and losses of any other kind of warfare.
On the employers side the immediate losses are idle capital, loss of
profits, the delaying of orders and loss of goodwill as well as the
possible incurring of insurance or strike breaking expenses while on
the workers side there is loss of wages, the contracting of debts and
all the personal hardships that may be involved. The strike weapon
penalizes every one of the workers more than the employer at
whom it is aimed. Apart from their effects on the particular workers
and employer concerned, strikes have an appreciable effect upon
the economy in general.
11.Unfair Practices in Collective Bargaining are sometimes
resorted to both by employers and trade unions. They are liable to
http://www.judis.nic.in
15
hamper the development of collective bargaining and embitter
negotiations so much by the suspicion and distrust they cause as to
make agreements difficult to reach. It cannot be sufficiently
emphasized that only in an atmosphere of mutual recognition and
respect device Collective Bargaining have a reasonable chance of
success.
12.The commonly used terms of strike are (1) legal strike (2)
illegal strikes that are prohibited under sections 22, 23 of the
Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. A particular strike may have more
than one classification a strike may be legal yet unjustified or it may
be illegal but justified. A strike, legal or illegal, justified or
unjustified does not dissolve the employer-employee relationship.
The right for strikes are in no way abridged by temporary
replacements and they are entitled to wages for the strike period, if
the strike is a justified one. Workers going on strike always regard
the justification of their demands as supreme. Therefore it is left to
the courts to search for its justifiability or un- justifiability. For once
their strike succeeds no flow of consequences legal or otherwise. It
is only from unsuccessful strikes that consequences flow.
http://www.judis.nic.in
16
13.Unfortunately in this Country, the available legislations,
has not kept pace with the change in times. The concept of a person
working in a particular establishment or a company permanently, is
no more in existence. Right from the highest executives to the
lowest level of workmen, they keep change in their jobs from one
establishment to another always looking for greener pasteures. That
apart, the technology keps changing at a rapid pace and unless a
person upgrades himself consistently at some stage he may become
irrelevant and soon become a dead wood. Due to the prevailing
laws, many employers do not want to have a permanent work force
and are resorting to contract labour. The foreign investors who
wants to set-up business / factories in India, are not in a position to
understand how the Industrial Laws work in this Country and he
feels that the prevailing laws do not in any way help Industrial
growth. For instance, Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
provides that no employer, who proposes to effect any change in
the conditions of service applicable to any workmen in respect of
any matter specified in the 4th Schedule, shall effect such change
without the consent of the workmen. The list provided under
Schedule 4 is so exhaustive that virtually for bringing about any
http://www.judis.nic.in
17
change or withdrawing any allowances / concessions, can never be
done without the consent of the workmen. The question is how will
a provision of this nature suit the present day scenario where every
other day, the technology changes and consequently the demand
and supply position also changes.
14.In short, the Industrial laws available in this Country has
become archaic and unfortunately it has not changed with the fast
changing environment in the industry. The law which does not meet
the needs of the change in times and remains static, will prove to be
more a hindrance than be of any help both to the employer and the
employee. We have already reached such a stage. Unfortunately the
legislature, in spite of being aware of the situation, has not chosen
to re-vamp the Industrial laws and for reasons best known to them,
continue to cling to the out dated, absolete and out moded
Industrial laws.
15.All the above discussions, may look beyond the scope of
this writ petition. However, this Court took the pain of expressing its
mind on the prevailing Industrial laws, since the dispute involved in
the present case, could have been easily handled, with an updated
http://www.judis.nic.in
18
Industrial legislation. This case is only a sample for the over all
situation that is prevailing in various Industrial establishments,
throughout India. If the law could have given a speedy solution to
the pending dispute between the petitioner management and the
second respondent union, one way or the other, the present
situation would not have arisen.
16.Conciliation proceedings are pending before the concerned
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram for
more than five months without a solution and no one is in a position
to raise the dispute. In view of the requirement under Industrial
Disputes Act that there must be a failure report sent to the
appropriate Government and thereafter the appropriate
Government has to make a reference under Section 10 to the
concerned Labour Court and only thereafter the dispute goes to an
Adjudicatory body. In the mean time, the misunderstanding and
mistrust between the parties keep growing and results in a
situation, as we find in this case. On the one hand, the management
is complaining that the striking workmen are bringing the entire
manufacturing process to a stand still and are armtwisting the
management to meet their demands. On the other hand, the union
http://www.judis.nic.in
19
is complaining stating that there is a illegal lockout and therfore
there is a legal strike and the management is trying to break the
strike with the use of police force and is also complaining that the
orders of this Court are mis-used and new workmen are brought in
to the factory in the place of the striking workmen, by taking
advantage of the orders passed by this Court, wherein this Court
had directed the police to ensure that the striking workmen are kept
200 meters away from the factory.
17.It is a settled principle of law that this Court cannot go into
the disputed questions of fact while exercising its Jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless the facts are
apparent on the face of the record. Strictly speaking all the
contentions raised by the competing parties, are factual in nature.
This Court in excise of its Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot give any finding regarding the issues
raised by both the parties with regard to the lockout, strike,
whether they are legal or illegal, whether there is unfair labour
practise, whether new workers are brought in, in the place of the
striking workers, etc., and these are all issues beyond the scope of
this writ petition. In fact, these are interse disputes between the
http://www.judis.nic.in
20
petitioner and the second respondent, which cannot be resolved in
this writ petition. Therefore, this Court is not going to render any
finding on these issues and it is left open to the parties to
adjudicate the same before the concerned Authority / Court.
18.The only issue into which this Court can go into in this writ
petition, is to see whether the petitioner company requires a police
protection, on the given facts and circumstances of the case. It will
therefore be useful to refer to the following judgments:
(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Railway
Board, New Delhi and another Vs. Niranjan Singh reported in AIR
1969 SCC 966 has held as follows:
"...13.It is true that the freedoms
guaranteed under our Constitution are very
valuable freedoms and this Court would resist
abridging the ambit of those freedoms except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution. The fact
that the citizens of this country have freedom of
speech, freedom to assemble peaceably and
freedom to form- associations or unions does not
mean that they can exercise those freedoms in
whatever place they please. The exercise of those
freedoms will come to an end as soon as the
'right of some- one else to hold his property
intervenes. Such a limitation is inherent in the
exercise of those 'rights. The validity of that
limitation is not to be judged by the tests
prescribed by Sub-Arts. (2) and (3) of Art. 19. In
http://www.judis.nic.in
21
other words the contents of the freedoms
guaranteed under cls.(a), (b) and (c), the only
freedoms with which we are concerned in this
appeal,.do not include the right to exercise them
in the properties belonging to others. If Mr. Garg
is right in his contentions then a citizen of this
country in the exercise of his right under cls. (d)
and (e) of Art. 19(1) could move about freely in a
public-office or even reside there unless there
exists some law imposing reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of those rights.
(ii)This Court in AVTEC Limited Power Products Division rep.
by its Authorised Signatory and Deputy General Manager (HR) Vs.
The Superintendent of Police and others reported in
MANU/TN/0402/2008 has held as follows:
"...15.Even assuming that the strike
resorted to by the members of the 4th respondent
Union is valid in law, it does not mean that the 4th
respondent and its members can indulge in any
violent activities. If it is the grievance of the 4th
respondent and its members that there is breach
of any agreement, it is always open to them to
raise a dispute under the Industrial Disputes
Act and the right to strike is not to increase
pressure on the employer by violent means. The
concept of collective bargain even though enables
the workmen to take concerted act for achieving
their demands through legal means, the same can
never be permitted to enable the workers to
indulge in violent activities. A reference to various
complaints and counter complaints given by both
sides as submitted by the learned Government
Advocate shows that all is not well with the 4th
respondent and its Union members. The collective
bargain is not to show strength by violence but the
same has to be shown by legal means alone.
http://www.judis.nic.in
22
17.Even under the Trade Unions Act, 1926,
the members of the Union are certainly not
permitted to involve in violent activities. In such
circumstances, giving police protection to factory
by this Court in exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
unknown. It was in K.C.P.Ltd., vs. Inspector of
Police, Tiruvottiyur & Others (1993 (1) L.L.J. 365),
in similar circumstance, when the employer has
obtained an injunction order from the civil Court,
the question arose as to whether this Court can
issue Writ of Mandamus for police protection by
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. This Court
(K.S.Bakthavatsalam,J.) while considering large
number of case laws on the issue, including a
Division Bench judgement of this Court in
Coimbatore Periyar District Motor Transport
Munnetra Sangam (by President) vs. Sivakumar
Transports, Tiruppur and others (99 Law Weekly
409) and Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation
Ltd., (by its Law Officer and Constituted, Attorney
N.K. Mandal) vs. Superintendent of Police,
St.Thomas Mount, Madras (1987 II LLN 294) and
rejecting the claim of the learned counsel for the
Union therein that no Mandamus can be issued for
police protection, held as follows:
"11. ......... Considering the issue in this case, I
am of the view that with regard to the order of Sri
Lanka Sugar Corporation of Colombo, the nondespatch
of the Articles would affect the interest
of the nation, especially the international market.
So also, with regard to the despatch of the Articles
to the Challapalli Sugars Ltd., at Lakshmipuram
unit, ( I am of the view ) the interest of the nation
and industrial growth are more important than the
interest of handful of workers. Taking the view
that the request made in this case would come
http://www.judis.nic.in
23
within the reasoning of the Division Bench of this
Court, cited supra, I am of the opinion that the
police protection should be ordered. ..... "
18.A specific reference was also made on the
judgement of Mohan,J.(as he then was) in Mining
and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd., (by its Law
Officer and Constituted, Attorney N.K. Mandal) vs.
Superintendent of Police, St.Thomas Mount,
Madras (1987 II LLN 294), wherein it was held
that a negative approach of lawful agitation by the
working class cannot be justified by resorting to
law and order problem in the industrial sector,
which is as follows:
"Strikes, lock-outs, satyagrahas and
demonstrations are nothing new in our country.
Promotion of social justice over the past few
decades was, to a considerable extent, due to
militant and agitational approach of the workmen
and not, to any appreciable degree, due to
condescension by the management. It is but true
that in the process of securing to the workmen
more amenities and privileges and better
conditions of service, the Industrial Tribunals,
Labour Courts, and the Courts of this Country
have played a vital role. A negative approach to
lawful agitation by the working class to secure
higher wages and better living conditions cannot
be justified by resort to the plea of maintaining
law and order in the industrial sector."
19. The jurisdiction of this Court in granting a Writ
of Mandamus by directing the police to give
protection to the management to carry on lawful
trade was again reiterated by the Division Bench
of Kerala High Court in Midland Rubber & Produce
Co.Ltd., Cochin vs. Superintendent of Police,
Pathanamthitta & Others (1999 (1) L.L.J. 385),
wherein AR.Lakshmanan,J. (as he then was) while
presiding over the Bench, has held as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in
24
"8. ........ Just as the workers are entitled to
protection of their legal rights by Courts of law,
the employers are also equally entitled to
protection of their fundamental right to carry on
their lawful trade or business. In our opinion it is
not open to the respondents-Unions to take the
law their own hands and obstruct the Permanent
workers of the appellant from discharging their
duties or prevent the appellant from doing the rain
guarding work. Sufficient safeguards are provided
under the Industrial Disputes Act to prevent
exploitation of workers by employers. It is strange
to find that one set of workers claimed right to get
employment on the basis of some practice and
preventing the employer from engaging labour of
their choice. If the claim of the labour is allowed,
then a day will come when a citizen of this
Country has to seek his employment in his own
village, taluk or district. Such a claim would run
counter to the rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the right now
claimed by the respondents on the basis of some
practice cannot be countenanced at all."
20. In view of the above settled position of law, I
do not think that the facts of this case will be
covered under Section 18 of the Trade Unions
Act,1926. Section 18(1) of the Trade Unions
Act,1926 certainly prohibits the employer from
breaking the contract of employment and it gives
immunity to an office bearer in respect of the act
done by him. When the employer attempts to
divide the striking workers, which is lawful, it is
certainly open to the 4th respondent Union and its
members to approach the Inspector of Factories or
raise an industrial dispute by treating the same as
unfair labour practice, etc. and the immunity
granted under Section 18(1) of the Act cannot
mean to say that the Union must be permitted to
achieve its object by resorting to the method
which are not permitted in law.
http://www.judis.nic.in
25
(iii) The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the judgment of
the Division Bench in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel
Tubes and others reported in 2018 (1) LLN 709 (DB) (HP) has held
as follows:
"...7. Ordinarily, the Members of Trade
Unions and Industrial Workers covered by the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
Industrial Employees Standing Orders,
1946, Trade Union Act, 1926 and host of other
legislations can resort to strike as one of the
modes of recognized form of expression.
However, the strikers must obey civilized
norms in the battle and not be vulgar or
violent hoodlums.
9.That apart, the right to strike is not
absolute under the Industrial jurisprudence
and restrictions have been placed on it, by
virtue of Sections 10(3), 10-A(4-A), 22, 23
and 24 of the Act, as was observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.R. Singh Vs. Union
of India, 1989 4 SCC 710 in the following
terms:-
"15. Counsel for TFAI also strongly contended
that since the strike was illegal, the workers
are not entitled to any relief. We see no merit
in this submission. The right to form
associations or unions is a fundamental right
under Article 19(l)(c) of the
Constitution. Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act
provides for registration of a trade union if all
the requirements of the said enactment are
fulfilled. The right to form associations and
unions and provide for their registration was
recognized obviously for conferring certain
http://www.judis.nic.in
26
rights on trade unions. The necessity to form
unions is obviously for voicing the demands
and grievances of labour.
Trade unionists act as mouthpieces of labour.
The strength of a trade union depends on its
membership. Therefore, trade unions with
sufficient membership strength are able to
bargain more effectively with the
managements. This bargaining power would
be considerably reduced if it is not permitted
to demonstrate. Strike in a given situation is
only a form of demonstration. There are
different modes of demonstrations, e.g., goslow,
sit-in, work-to-rule, absenteeism, etc.,
and strike is one such mode of demonstration
by workers for their rights. The right to
demonstrate and, therefore, the right to strike
is an important weapon in the armoury of the
workers. This right has been recognised by
almost all democratic countries. Though not
raised to the high pedestal of a fundamental
right, it is recognised as a mode of redress for
resolving the grievances of workers. But the
right to strike is not absolute under our
industrial jurisprudence and restrictions have
been placed on it. These are to be found
in Sections 10(3), 10-A(4-A), 22 and 23 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act" for
short). Section 10(3) empowers the
appropriate government to prohibit the
continuance of a strike if it is in connection
with a dispute referred to one of the fora
created under the said statute. Section 10-
A(4-A) confers similar power on the
appropriate government where the industrial
dispute which is the cause of the strike is
referred to arbitration and a notification in that
behalf is issued under Section 10-A(3-A).
These two provisions have no application to
the present case since it is nobody's
http://www.judis.nic.in
27
contention that the Union's demands have
been referred to any forum under the statute."
10. Thus, it is established that right of
strike as part of collective bargaining is
recognized in law only so long as it is peaceful.
There is no scope for violence. Workmen
cannot be permitted to take law into their own
hands. The striking employees/workmen etc.
must obey the civilized norms in the battle,
desist from using vulgar and intimidating
language; indulge in violent acts or acts which
may subversive to the discipline of the
industrial undertaking/company etc.
11.It is equally settled that the right to
freedom of speech and expression is
guaranteed under the Constitution of India,
but the same is subject to reasonable
restrictions as enshrined under Article 19 of
the Constitution of India. The Trade Unions or
their office bearers can resort to
demonstration/dharna but that would be
subject to the law of land. The same can be
carried out only in a peaceful manner and not
in a manner that would stop the working of
the management. The management has every
right to ensure that its working is not
obstructed. Therefore, a balance necessarily
has to be struck between the competing
interests and to ensure that the work of the
management is not disturbed and at the same
time workmen can also continue with their
activities in a peaceful manner.
13.Adverting to the facts, it would be
noticed that the specific allegations of the
petitioners are that 40 erstwhile workers are
creating hindrance in the execution of the
work and have paralyzed the entire work and
have virtually held the project to ransom
http://www.judis.nic.in
28
which is causing unnecessary delay in the
execution of the project of great significance
and importance, which is detrimental to the
larger public interest. This only goes to show
that these workers have no or scant respect
for the rule of law or else they would have
taken resort to legal remedy."
19. By referring to the above judgments, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even
assuming without admitting that the strike conducted by the second
respondent union is legal and valid in law, the second respondent
union and its members cannot indulge in violent activities and the
concept of collective bargaining should not be extended to the
extent of indulging in violent activities. The learned senior counsel
further submitted that it is open to the second respondent union to
raise an Industrial dispute, if they feel that the act of the petitioner
company will amount to a unfair labour practise. However, that
cannot mean to say that the second respondent will achieve the
said object by resorting to violence. The petitioner company is not
attempting to stop or prevent the second respondent from
continuing the strike, however that does not give a license to the
second respondent union to indulge in violence and stop the free
ingress and egress of men and materials. The learned senior
http://www.judis.nic.in
29
counsel by pointing out to the above said judgments, impressed
upon this Court that the law is well settled in this regard.
20.This Court will now deal with the judgments relied upon by
the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the second
respondent. The judgment in the case of United Labour Federation
Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2013 SCC Online Mad
1857, this Court has held as follows:
"...50. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed with the following directions to the
respondents 1 to 3:
(i) The respondents 1 to 3 shall not interfere in
the industrial dispute so long as the strike is
peaceful. For any reason, if it becomes violent
or it takes the shape of disturbing the law and
order situation or at the instance of the
management there is likelihood of disturbance
to law and order, then, it is for the police
authorities to restore peace and to prevent any
unlawful activities;
(ii) The respondents 1 to 3 shall not aid the
4th respondent from removing or shifting of
machineries, equipments, materials or dyes,
etc., from the factory premises during strike
period with a view to break the strike. It is
further directed that contrary to the
undertaking given by the fourth respondent, if
any machinery or equipment or material or
dyes are removed or attempted to be removed
out of factory premises during strike with a
view to break the strike, and in the event,
http://www.judis.nic.in
30
there is any complaint regarding the same by
workmen, the respondents 1 to 3 shall prevent
the same by swiftly making interference; and
(iii) The respondents 1 to 3 shall not aid the
4th respondent to bring in any person who is
not on the Rolls of the Register of Adult
Workers maintained under the Factories Act as
on 05.12.2012, into the factory to perform the
work earlier performed by the workers who are
on strike.
21.Aggrieved by the above order of the learned Single Jugde,
the management went on an appeal. The Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.1429 of 2013, by order dated 20.08.2013,
confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. The relevant
portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
"...54.Though strictly speaking that the
appellant/fourth respondent in the writ
petition, can induct trainees and unrolled
apprentices, utilisation of their services in the
place of striking workmen as well as the
utilisation of services of managerial staff to
operate the machines clearly amount to unfair
labour practice. Therefore, Question No.2 is
also answered in negative against the
appellant/fourth respondent and in favour of
the first respondent/writ petitioner.
55.The learned Single Judge on an indepth
analysis of the factual aspects and legal
position held that since the Automobile
component Manufacturing Industry is not
http://www.judis.nic.in
31
declared as a public Utility Service, the strike
by the members of the first respondent/writ
petitioner Union, cannot be termed as illegal
and further found that training to the
trainees/apprentices. The learned Single Judge
further found that utilisation of services of 106
employees in the form of management staff,
trainees and apprentices is undoubtedly an
unfair labour practice. This Court finds no
infirmity in the reasons assigned by the
learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge
has also sufficiently protected the interest of
the appellant-management in the event of any
law and order problem.
56.This Court on a careful scrutiny and
appreciation of entire materials placed before
it, is of the considered view that there is no
error apparent in the impugned order, allowing
the writ petition."
22.The management took this case on appeal to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated
03.02.2014, dismissed the SLP as withdrawn.
23.By pointing out to the above judgment, the learned senior
counsel would contend that the petitioner management cannot
interfere in an Industrial dispute so long as the strike is peaceful
and it does not turn violent or disturbs the law and order situation.
The learned senior counsel would further contend that any action on
the part of the petitioner management, which is attempted to break
http://www.judis.nic.in
32
the strike, will amount to an unfair labour practice. The learned
senior counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the direction
given by this Court to the police not to aid the management to bring
in any person not on the rolls of the register maintained under the
Factories Act and impressed upon this Court to give a similar
direction in this writ petition and if that is ensured, the learned
senior counsel would submit that the second respondent will
continue the strike 200 meters away from the factory premises and
the second respondent will not prevent the free ingress and egress
of the executives, management staff and willing workmen, whose
names are found in the rolls of the register, as on 31.08.2018 and
materials.
24.The above direction was given by this Court only after
satisfying itself that the strike in question was a legal strike. At
paragraph 38 of the order of the learned Single Judge, there is a
finding to that effect. The concerned case was filed by the union and
on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was called
upon to decide whether the strike was legal or illegal. The Court
held that the strike was legal and consequently, by relying upon the
5th Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, held that recruitment of
http://www.judis.nic.in
33
workers in the place of the striking workmen, is an unfair labour
practice in terms of entry 12 to 5th Schedule of the Industrial
Disputes Act. In view of that said finding, the learned Judge
proceeded to give a direction to the police as found in Paragraph 50
(iii) of the order which has been extracted supra.
25.In the present case, this Court is not called upon to decide
the nature of the strike conducted by the second respondent. In
view of the rival claims made by either of the parties and since it
involves disputed questions of fact, this Court has already held here
in above that it is not going to go into the said issue. Therefore, this
Court does not want to clothe the police with the power of
monitoring, whether the workmen going into the factory premises is
really a workmen whose name is found in the rolls of the register
maintained by the petitioner management. Therefore, the relief
claimed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the second
respondent, to that effect, is hereby rejected.
26.The only other question that is left to be decided by this
Court is whether the police protection given to the petitioner
company should continue. For this purpose, apart from the
http://www.judis.nic.in
34
averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition,
it will also be very relevant to take note of the report filed by the
first respondent police.
27.The 1st respondent Police in his report has stated as
follows:
" On 04.09.2018 2nd shift employees
started to strike in front of the said Company,
subsequently 1st Shift employees in order join
in strike, suddenly all of them came out from
the Company without giving production
details. When the same was questioned by
Production Manager, they abused him in filthy
language and also threatened him and strike
was conducted in front of entry gate of
Company premises. They found accessories &
Tools in Housing Pully, Wheel Cylinder, Bracket
Machine were missing. On checking the CCTC
Camera, Raghu & Suresh while returned from
work at early morning 12.06 hours they
switched off CCTV Power and they planned
and switched off the power supply to CCTC
Camera and looted the tools from the above
said machineries. Thus he requested to trace
the stolen tools and handover the same to
him. Hence, this complaint. Subsequently,
http://www.judis.nic.in
35
the Company decided to start production work
with available employees.
I submit that based on the said
complaint, CSR was issued ont he same day
vide CSR No.524/2018 and after conducting
due enquiry, he found that the prima facie
case is made out in this matter, a case was
registered in C1 Sriperumpudur PS Crime
No.594/2018 u/s. 147, 294(b), 381, 506(i) &
120(b) IPC dated 22.09.2018 16.00 hours
against Raghu, Suresh & 13 others by
Tr.D.natarajan, the then Inspector of Police
and conducted preliminary investigation and
recorded statement from the
Tr.Parhiban/defacto complainant.
I submit that after taken a charge as
Inspector of Police in C1 Sriperimpudur Police
Station, I took up the case for further
investigation. I arrested the accused on
28.10.2018 Anbarasanand based on his
confession statement, I seized Reamer-3 nos
used for CNC & VMC Machineries from the
accused under cover of seizure mahazar in the
presence of witnesses and thereafter he was
remanded to judicial custody.
http://www.judis.nic.in
36
I submit that on 13.11.2018, I arrested
Raghuraman and recorded his confession
statement and he was remanded to judicial
custody. Remaining 13 accused obtained
Anticipatory bail from this Hon'ble Court vide
Crl.O.P.No.25438/2018 [2] and
Crl.O.P.No.25440/2018 [13] dated 02.11.2018
with certain conditions.
I submit that during the course of
pending investigation the petitioner filed this
writ petition seeking prayer to give police
protection and pass such further orders.
I submit that, from the date of
occurrence i.e., on 04.09.2018, I am giving
police protection to the said Company to
maintain Law and order in and around the
places to run the company peacefully.
I submit that the case is under
investigation. So far the investigation
revealed that
(i)On 04.09.2018, without giving any
prior intimation, 90 employees [1st & 2nd
shift] participated in the strike in front of
http://www.judis.nic.in
37
Company gate by demanding (a) to
permanent the trainees; (b) trainee staff to be
appointed as permanent labour; (c) to
recognize their Union by name "ULF" (d)
expecting attractive Salary and (d) not to
change employees.
(ii) On enquiry conducted with the
petitioner/Management, I came to know that
there are totally 118 employees are working
in the said company [including 90 employees
under strike], Presently 28 permanent
employees are working, so that production will
be decreased, while being so, the petitioner to
increase the production by appointing
temporary employees [40 persons] from their
Vendors Company.
(iii)The Management informed that they
will consider about the employment for the 15
accused in the said FIR, after competition of
investigation and Enquiry of Dy.Commissioner
of Labout at Irrugattukottai.
(iv)Further the Management informed
that the employees those who participated in
the strike, willing to work in their Company as
per their norms, they will ready to accept
http://www.judis.nic.in
38
them to re-join for work.
28.From the above report, it is clear that a normal
atmosphere is not prevailing near the factory premises and there is
an uneasy tension in the air. Therefore, in order to maintain the
law and order and also in order to ensure the free ingress and
egress of men and materials, police protection has to be given to
the petitioner Company, in order to run their day today activities.
29. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
a) The 1st respondent Police shall provide Police Protection to
the factory premises of the petitioner Company to ensure that there
is free ingress and egress of men and materials.
b) The 1st respondent shall ensure that no law and order
problem is created near the factory premises and normalcy is
maintained.
c) The 2nd respondent can conduct the demonstrations/strike,
http://www.judis.nic.in
39
200 mts away from the petitioner's Factory premises.
d) It is left open to the parties to agitate their respective
rights before the appropriate forum/Court and this order will not
have any bearing on the respective rights of parties. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
06.12.2018
krk
Index: yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
http://www.judis.nic.in
40
N.ANAND VENKATESH .J.,
krk
Pre-Delivery Order made in
W.P.No.23427 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.27342 of 2018
Delivered on: 06.12.2018
http://www.judis.nic.in
Comments