The court upheld the restraining order on the nurses' strike, emphasizing the necessity of public health services and confirming the importance of following conciliation procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition was filed by the All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) against the AIIMS Nurses Union challenging the notice issued by the Union for going on an indefinite strike w.e.f. 16th December, 2020. The Nurses Union had raised various demands and issues with the Petitioner which, according to it, were not addressed. Hence, the notice for a strike.

3. In the present petition, the ld. Single Judge had the occasion to consider the matter on 15th December, 2020 and after hearing ld. counsel for the Petitioner, the Court had directed that the Respondent would not go on strike till further orders. The extract of the said order reads:-

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the strike being in violation of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is also in violation of the judgment dated 20.05.2002 passed by this Court in Court on its own Motion v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, 2002 (64) DRJ 418 wherein, keeping in view the special circumstances of the petitioner as an institution and the sensitive nature of such super speciality referral hospital requiring uninterrupted and smooth functioning of each and every sphere of activity, it was inter-alia directed that no employee or staff or faculty member shall cease work for any reason whatsoever.

4. Keeping in view the submissions made and the assurance given by the petitioner that the grievance of the respondent is being considered and will be duly considered in an appropriate manner, the respondent is restrained from continuing with the strike till further order."

4. Since then, the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Nurses Union. The submission of Mr. Santosh Krishnan, appearing for the Nurses' Union is three fold:-

(i) That the maintainability of the writ petition is under doubt as no writ ought to be entertained against a trade union;

(ii) That the matter is already pending before the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID" Act) and the said proceedings have been adjourned awaiting further orders of this writ petition. The said conciliation proceedings ought to continue;

(iii) No coercive measures ought to be taken by AIIMS against the nurses due to the one day strike.

5. He further points out that in W.P.(C) 6727/2018 titled Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd Vs. General Secretary (Staff Council) & Ors, initially an order was granted restraining the Union from going on strike. Finally, however, the Court had passed an order permitting the Union to avail its remedies.

6. On behalf of AIIMS, it is submitted that the merits of the grievances raised by Nurses has not been dealt with in the writ petition. The only relief which AIIMS is seeking is that the strike should not be given effect to considering the public nature of the function performed by AIIMS as also the nurses working therein. In so far as the Conciliation proceeding is concerned, the counsel for the AIIMS submits that he had no objection, if the conciliation proceedings go on.

7. Heard ld. counsels for the parties. In DMRC Ltd (supra), the ld. Single Judge had, initially vide order dated 28th January 2019 restrained the DMRC workers from going on strike. The operative portion of the said order reads:

"15. Considering the fact that the petitioner is running a public utility service which caters to around 25 Lakhs citizens of Delhi as a daily basis who come largely from the middle income group and the fact that they would be greatly inconvenienced if the respondents go on strike, a