Back
1990 Supreme(Ker) 60
Judges : SREEDHARAN
Balakrishna Transport - Appellant
Versus
Supdt.of Police - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 6320 of 1989
Decided On : 02/07/1990
Advocates Appeared :
P. Ravindran; For Petitioner in O.P. 6320 of 1989 K.R. Kurup; A.K. Chinnan; P.K. Balakrishnan Nair; For Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to collective bargaining does not extend to the destruction of the establishment and its assets, and the police have a duty to intervene and maintain law and order in such situations.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Collective Bargaining - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S.10(3), 10A(4A), 22, 23 - The court addressed the issues related to a labour dispute between a stage carriage operator and a trade union, where the union resorted to violent activities, damaging the vehicles and obstructing the operation of the business. The court emphasized the importance of collective bargaining and the right to strike, but also highlighted the limitations and restrictions provided in the Industrial Disputes Act. The court held that the right to collective bargaining does not extend to the destruction of the establishment and its assets, and emphasized the duty of the police to intervene and maintain law and order in such situations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a stage carriage operator, faced a labour dispute with a trade union, where the union resorted to violent activities, damaging the vehicles and obstructing the operation of the business. The petitioner sought police protection and filed petitions to address the issue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trade union's resort to violent activities was unjustified and emphasized the duty of the police to intervene and maintain law and order. The court also directed the District Labour Officer to take effective steps to prevent unfair labour practices.
Issues: The key issues involved the trade union's ultimatum, violent activities, and obstruction of the business operations, as well as the duty of the police and the District Labour Officer in addressing the labour dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limitations and restrictions on the right to collective bargaining provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, highlighting the duty of the police to intervene and maintain law and order in situations where the right to strike is misused to cause destruction and obstruction.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's petition and directed the District Labour Officer to take effective steps to prevent unfair labour practices. The court also dismissed the trade union's petition with the observation that the District Labour Officer would prevent the petitioner from resorting to unfair labour practices.
1. The issues raised in these Original Petitions are interconnected. So, I consider it advantageous to dispose of the same by a common judgment. I am referring to the parties and exhibits as they are arrayed and marked in O.P. No.6320/1989.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these cases are as follows: Petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He owns a fleet of stage carriages. They ply on inter district routes. Headquarters is in Trichur District. Petitioner has in his employment nearly 130 workers. Majority of the, employees are members of 7th respondent trade union. 8th respondent commands second position in terms of numerical strength of members. 9th respondent union was established recently. They have put forward a charter of demands evidenced by Ext.P4. Petitioner moved 6th respondent, the District Labour Officer, Trichur, to take up the demand and to conciliate the matter. While conciliation proceedings were in progress 9th respondent issued Ext.P7 ultimatum to the petitioner demanding that the charter of demands submitted by them should be accepted into on or before 22-6-1989 and on failure they will resort to direct action from 23-6-1989 onwards. Petitioner could not comply with the ultimatum given by 9th respondent. Consequently 9th respondent and its followers resorted to use of force against the petitioner and vehicles owned by him. Petitioner approached the police officials for getting protection from the illegal activities of 9th respondent and its followers. Since effective protection was not afforded by the police, petitioner has approached this court by moving O.P.No.6320/1989.
3. 9th respondent has moved O.P. 6345/1989 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondents 1 and 2, police officers, Trichur, to prevent them from giving any police help or assistance to the petitioner in O.P.6320/1989.
4. Along with O.P.6345/89 the petitioner moved C.M.P.No.19194/89 praying for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to forbear from giving any police help or assistance to the management for conducting the stage carriage services with newly recruited labourers either directly or through the local police. This court on 7-9-1989 issued the following order:
"4th respondent (petitioner in O.P. 6320/89) shall not operate stage carriage services by availing of services of any person appointed to his service after 23-6-89".
5. Along with O.P.6320 of 1989 petitioner moved C.M.P.19143/1989. In that, petitioner prayed for an interim direction to the police officers to afford adequate protection to him and members of his family and employees in the establishment. On 7-8-1989 the Superintendent of Police, Trichur, and Circle Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor were directed to ensure that respondents 7 to 9 or those acting under them shall not interfere with the operation of stage carriage services operated by petitioner. In pursuance to that direction petitioner could ply his vehicles within the Trichur District without any obstruction from 9th respondent and its followers. But when the vehicles entered the surrounding districts they were obstructed and damaged by the followers of 9th respondent They resorted to violence under the cover of the order obtained by them in C.M.P. No. 19194/89 as well. Consequently, petitioner moved this court by filing C.M.P. No.23735/1989. This court by order dated 15-9-1989 made it clear that the District Superintendents of Police, Malappuram, Calicut and Palghat are equally bound by the order passed by this court in C.M.P. No. 19143A989 and that they should give adequate protection to the petitioner so as to enable him to ply the vehicles in the normal manner. There upon the petitioner could ply his vehicles on the routes covered by the permits without any obstruction from 9th respondent and its followers.
6. As per the order in C.M.P. 23733/1989 a Commissioner was deputed from this court to inspect the damaged buses and to file a report regarding the same. The Commissioner after i
