JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---Ailing patients cannot be left ailing and unattended. Hospital beds are not the lifeless rattling machines in a factory which can be deserted by the striking workmen. To strike work in a hospital is to strike at the patients to deepen their unhealed wounds. This would apply to all doctors, nurses or ward boys. Following this philosophy the legislature did a wise thing to exclude "hospitals" from the net of "industry" and to take them out of the clutches of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. What was legislatively conceived was however administratively aborted. The 1982 amendment has not been yet brought in force even after 18 long years. The new century has dawned but the Executive is still groping in dark in search of courage to enforce the legislative mandate.

2. It is clear from the Union's letter dated 29-12-1986 that the strike was not for any economic demands. Needless to mention that the petitioners have severally suffered as a hospital at the hands of their striking workman who left the bed-ridden patients in lurch to pressurise the management to accede to their otherwise unjustified demand to withdraw dismissal order passed against the employees. To protect the erring employees who were dismissed for their acts of misconducts after holding domestic enquiries against them. A general and vague mention of harassment was made in the letter dated 29-12-1986 and a threat of strike was also given if both those workmen were not reinstated. The Union could have challenged the impugned dismissal orders under the Law and could not have struck work in the hospital. It is also pertinent to note that finally it has given up the claim of reinstatement of one workman who was found guilty of assault on a Matron in her room.

3. If the petitioners were wrong, their action could have been challenged before the Court of law and it was not at all proper and justified for them to strike work. According to the petitioners the strike was not only illegal and unjustified but was contrary to the prohibitory orders issued by the State Government under section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the Hospitals have been declared as a "public utility service" by its notification dated 14-8-1986 under section 22 all strikes in any public utility services are banned without a strike notice. According to the petitioners the strike was commenced and continued by 85 workmen from 2-1-1987 to 16-2-1987 without any notice either under the I.D. Act or under the MRTU PULP Act, 1971. It is their case that the strike in contravention of these provisions is per se illegal and that there is no necessity of getting it declared illegal for the purpose of disciplinary action to be taken under the Standing Orders.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that on and from 2-1-1987 all the Class IV employees and technicians working in the X-Ray Pathological Laboratories resorted to an illegal lightening sit-in-strike. The petitioners had informed the Union and the employees that their strike was in contravention of the provisions of law and was an illegal strike. On 4-1-1987 the petitioners gave an opportunity to the workmen to withdraw the strike and join their duties on giving an undertaking of working after entering the hospital. The Union and the workmen did not budge and no undertaking was given by any workmen and they continued to remain on the hospital premises giving abusive slogans against the management. On 9-1-1987 the petitioners Administrative Shri S.H. Parekh was Gheraoed and abused and was not allowed to leave the hospital premises until the police intervened. The petitioners had approached the Industrial Court against the Union and the workmen for a declaration that they had engaged and were engaging in an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Items 1, 5 of Schedule III of the MRTU PULP Act and obtained an ad interim injunction against them. On 16-2-1987 the respondent Union filed a Purshish in Complaint (ULP) N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document