The court held that a strike in a public utility service like the petitioner-company, which was a manufacturer of life-saving drugs, could not be permitted if it was illegal and prejudicial to public interest. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the company's operations and the safety of its employees and the public.

Common Order:

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the common order of dismissal of the I.A.Nos:1489 to 1491 of 2006 in O.S.No: 360 of 2006 dated 13. 2007 by the learned District Munsif, Madurantagam, filed by the petitioner-company to restrain the respondents and the members of the 17th respondent-Union from assembling within 100 meters of the boundary of its company and restraining them from obstructing the ingress and egress of vehicles carrying raw materials and finished products, staff bus and other vehicles in to the petitioner-company and also obstructing the loyal workers, foreign customers and other visitors from entering into the petitioners company and getting out of the company till the disposal of the suit.

2. The case of the petitioner-company is that it is a manufacturer of life saving drugs, antibiotics and other pharmaceutical products. It is an export oriented company with a turn over of more than Rs.800 crores, earning a foreign exchange of Rs.620 crores for the accounting year 2005-2006. It is one of the top 5 companies in the world manufacturing cephalosporin and has got orders for over two hundred crores. During the regular course of business issued transfer orders dated 112. 2006 to the respondents 1,3,13 and 14 on 112. 2006 directing them to take charge on the dates specified in the transfer orders. On 20.12.2006 the petitioner company received a fax message stating that the 17th respondent Union has been formed with a list of persons described therein as its office bearers. On 20.12.2006 the 17th respondent and few other employees unlawfully stopped their work and created an industrial unrest causing huge loss to the company. They have prevented the workers who were working in the first and second shift and the other loyal workers of the company and the conduct of the respondents amounted to an illegal strike without notice and a complaint was preferred to the Inspector of Police, Thiruporur and thereafter the company had suspended the respondents 1 to 14 and dismissed the respondents 15 and 16. On 212. 2006 the petitioner company claims that it had received a notice from the Dy.Commissioner of Labour, Chennai directing it to appear before it on 212. 2006. On the same date it issued charge memos to the respondents 1 to 14. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents assembled at the main entrance of the company and started to obstruct the ingress and egress of the loyal workers, foreign customers and visitors of the company. They had also warned the officials that they would obstruct the vehicle transport and apprehending that the respondents might resort to their unlawful attempts the petitioner company filed the suit along with the three I.As for the interim reliefs as stated above.

3. Though the learned District Munsif, Madurantgam initially granted ex parte interim orders in the I.As., but vacated the same and dismissed the three I.As., on a consideration of the averments of both parties and after conducting an enquiry on the following grounds:

.(i) There is no evidence or any materials to show that an illegal strike was conducted on 20.1.2006;

.(ii) The transfer of important functionaries of the 17th Respondent-Union to the Units not related to Drug manufacturing is an vindictive action of the petitioner-company which is contravention of immunity provided under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926;

(iii) There is no evidence to show that the respondents had in fact prevented the petitioners employees or vehicles from moving in and out of the premises and on mere apprehension the relief cannot be granted. Further, if the reliefs prayed for in the I.As are granted it would virtually amount to granting the very decree in the suit;

.(iv) The petitioner-company has not even chosen to appear before the Dey.Commissioner of Labour to challenge the claim made before him by the labour union;

.(v) There is no equity or prima facie case made out or there exists a balance of conve