Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 1089
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Subrata Talukdar, J.
G.R.S.E. Ltd. Workmen's Union and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of West Bengal and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 26910 (W) of 2016
Decided On : 02-12-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Soumya Majumdar, Victor Chatterjee
For the Respondents: Narayan Chandra Bhattacharyya, Sujata Ghosh
The right to hold gate meetings by a trade union is a species of the right to freedom of speech and expression protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
TRADE UNION - RIGHT TO HOLD GATE MEETINGS - SECURITY CONCERNS: The High Court of Calcutta held that the right to hold gate meetings by a trade union at a key defense establishment, such as Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited (GRSE), must be balanced against the perception of security concerns. The court directed GRSE Management to consult with the CISF Commandant to demarcate areas, modalities, and dates for permitting the union to hold election-related meetings.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed by the registered and recognized Trade Union of GRSE, challenging the notices issued by GRSE informing the union that its request for holding gate meetings at or inside the GRSE premises cannot be allowed from the security point of view.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the right to hold gate meetings is a species of the right to freedom of speech and expression protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The court further held that the right to freedom of speech and expression during a process of election in which the association or union participates and in which members of the association or unions cast their ballots cannot be divorced from the right to form an association or union.
Issues: 1. Whether the right to hold gate meetings by a trade union at a key defense establishment can be restricted on the grounds of security concerns? 2. How should the right to hold gate meetings be balanced against the perception of security concerns?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments to hold that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to hold gate meetings by a trade union. The court also held that the right to freedom of speech and expression during a process of election cannot be divorced from the right to form an association or union.
Final Decision: The court directed GRSE Management to consult with the CISF Commandant to demarcate areas, modalities, and dates for permitting the union to hold election-related meetings. The court also directed that the facility of holding gate meetings be extended to other associations and unions by the GRSE Management commensurate to their standing in the establishment.
Subrata Talukdar, J.
1. Sri Soumya Majumdar, learned Counsel represents the writ petitioners of which, the petitioner No. 1 is the registered and recognised Trade Union (for short the Union) as well as a body corporate under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short The 1926 Act). The Union claims to be the majority union as well as the sole bargaining agent of the workmen employed with the respondent No. 3/Ms. Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited (for short G.R.S.E.). The grievance of the writ petitioners arises in respect of two notices dated 20th August, 2016 and 14th November, 2016 by which the General Secretary of the Union was informed by G.R.S.E. that the request of the union for holding gate meeting at or inside the G.R.S.E. premises cannot be allowed from the security point of view. It was, inter alia, further communicated to the union that since the gates are now under the control of the Central Industrial Security Force (for short C.I.S.F) and, as argued by Sri Ranjoy De, learned Counsel for G.R.S.E. today, G.R.S.E. being a sensitive defence establishment, there is reason enough not to permit any situation whereby the security of such an important installation is put to stress.
2. Sri Majumdar places reliance upon the Trade Unions (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1983 (for short the 1983 Act) and, particularly points out to Chapter-IIIA. Referring to section 28E of the said Chapter-IIIA, Sri Majumdar submits that the present union, being a trade union with sole bargaining powers, has the privilege of holding discussions on behalf of the workmen at suitable places at and within the premises of the industrial establishment. Sri Majumdar also submits that section 34 of the said 1983 Act entitles an employer to grant protection in the prescribed manner for lawful trade union activity.
3. Sri Majumdar additionally relies upon the Constitutional guarantees of freedom enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India, and particularly 19(c), which is the right to form association or unions, inclusive of co-operative societies. Further referring to the restriction imposed under Article 19(4), Sri Majumdar submits that the restrictions imposed on Article 19 (c) (supra) are only valid in respect of any existing law so far as such enactment reasonably restricts in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, law and order or morality. In support of his arguments, Sri Majumdar relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011)9 SCC 286 (Andhra Pradesh Diary Development Corporation Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy & Ors.) at Paragraphs 21 and 26 thereof, which makes it imperative that the content of the right under Article 19(1) (c) shall be meaningful.
4. Therefore, to the extent that the impugned notices dated 18th November, 2016 and 20th August, 2016 impose unreasonable restrictions upon the union at not being allowed to hold meetings from the security point of view, Sri Majumdar submits that such restrictions are required to be set aside.
5. Counsel for G.R.S.E., Sri De produces before this Court several correspondence, including the communication dated 22nd August, 2016 from the Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, G.R.S.E. which seeks to convey to the management that the request of the Union for holding a gate meeting should not be acceded to since the G.R.S.E. is a sensitive defence establishment. Sri De also produces several documents to emphasise the point that elaborate arrangements have been organised on behalf of the management to ensure that the unions, including the present petitioners, are not restricted from the exercise of the franchise of their members, by putting up several hoardings/posters etc.
6. Sri De submits that the right of a trade union under the 1983 Act is not unfettered inasmuch as it is restricted to particular trade union activities to be carried on within the industrial premises with the consent of the employer. It is also pointed out by Sri De that the reasonable
