SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(HP) 1724

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol, ACJ., Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Gujarat Steel Tubes - Respondent
C.W.P. No. 8480 of 2014
Decided On : 08-03-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae with Mr. Tijender Singh, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Mr. Adarsh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Rita Goswami, Advocates, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Addl. A.Gs. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Advocate and Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Dy. A.G, for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. N.K. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 3; Ms. Ritu Raj Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 4; Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh and Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocates, for the HPRIDC

The right to strike is recognized in law only if it is peaceful and subject to reasonable restrictions, and a balance must be struck between the interests of the workers and the management to ensure peaceful activities.

Headnote:

Right to Strike - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Trade Union Act, 1926 - 2.2.2018, 7.3.2018, 23.2.2018, 28.3.2018 - The court discussed the right to strike as part of collective bargaining and the restrictions placed on it under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Trade Union Act, 1926. The court emphasized that the right of strike is recognized in law only if it is peaceful and subject to reasonable restrictions. It highlighted the need for a balance between the interests of the workers and the management to ensure that work is not disturbed and that workers can continue their activities peacefully.

Fact of the Case:

Respondent No. 3 disengaged 40 workers, who then engaged in illegal activities, hindering the execution of a project, leading to a court intervention.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the workers' activities were illegal and detrimental to the larger public interest, leading to the issuance of restraining orders against the workers and directions to ensure compliance.

Issues: Illegal activities of disengaged workers, hindrance in project execution, balance between workers' rights and management's interests.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to strike is recognized in law only if it is peaceful and subject to reasonable restrictions. A balance must be struck between the interests of the workers and the management to ensure that work is not disturbed and that workers can continue their activities peacefully.

Final Decision: Restraining orders issued against the disengaged workers to prevent interference with project execution and directions for compliance by the authorities.

JUDGMENT

1. In compliance to the directions passed by this Court on 2.2.2018, respondent No. 3 has filed the status report wherein the details of the progress of the work, from time to time, has been set-out. Apart from that, it has also been mentioned that the excavation activities in Package-I has since been nearing completion and on 23.2.2018 hardly about 200 meters of excavation activity spreading in four different locations was to be executed, therefore, the Mechanical/technical staff and also the drivers/operators, supervisors engaged by respondent No. 3 - Company numbering 40 were disengaged by paying all the dues including salaries as also one month advance salary in lieu of notice period alongwith gratuity etc. by remitting the same to their respective bank accounts.

2. However, to the utter surprise of respondent No. 2, these 40 persons ever since the date of their disengagement have indulged in illegal and unlawful activity of Dharna, Gheraoing etc. and are repeatedly and continuously gathering and assembling at Camp Site at Chhaila, the location where the different activities of the balance unexecuted work are being undertaken and are further indulging in slogan shouting, intimidating and threatening the staff and are not even letting the remaining work force numbering about 200 to carry out any activity.

3. These disengaged persons have not even withdrawn from the project camp site at Chhaila and are forcibly occupying the accommodation which had earlier been provided to them and are indulging in illegal activities from that site. On account of this, the work in Package-I has also come to a grinding halt and the project site at Chhaila has been rendered meaningless for carrying out any activity as the aforesaid persons and their associates have even stopped the ingress and outgress of other machinery.

4. It was on account of these averments that this Court vide order dated 7.3.2018 adjourned the matter for 8.3.2018 to enable the learned Advocate General to obtain instructions with regard to these averments.

5. Today, the learned Advocate General has categorically stated that the State as duty bound is ready to provide all assistance to respondent No. 3, so as to ensure that there is no hindrance created by any person(s) in the smooth execution of the work.

6. In the given circumstances, without going into the merits of the progress report as filed alongwith the status report, we would only determine as to whether 40 persons whose services the respondent No. 3 claims to have disengaged have an absolute right to go on strike and can create hindrance in execution of the work.

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.

8. This was so held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and others v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and others, (1980) 2 SCC 593 and the relevant observations reads thus:-

    "129. A selective study of the case-law is proper at this place. Before we do this, a few words on the basis of the right to strike and progressive legal thinking led by constitutional guidelines is necessitous. The right to union, the right to strike as part of collective bargaining and, subject to the legality and humanity of the situation, the right of the weaker group, viz., labour,to pressure the stronger party viz., capital, to negotiate and ender justice, are processes recognised by industrial jurisprudence and supported by Social Justice. While society itself, in its basic needs of existence, may not be held to ransom in the name of the right to bargain and strikers must obey civilized norms in the battle and not be vulgar or violent hoodlums, industry,

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          Judicial Analysis

          AI

          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top