The enforcement of rights and remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act must be sought exclusively within the statute, and the court cannot repeatedly grant declaratory relief to the same effect between the same parties.

1. The petitioner being the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Public Sector Unit (PSU) is once again before this court for a similar relief, i.e., seeking for a declaration declaring that the strike notice dated 06.07.2011 issued by the respondents 1 and 2 trade unions and the strike notice dated 16.7.2011 issued by the third respondent trade union, i.e., Petroleum Employees Association having its base at Kochi, are illegal and violative of sections 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and to pass such other order as it may deem it fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. It is the case of the petitioner Corporation that it is engaged in the business of marketing and distribution of Petroleum products. Its regional office at Chennai is having over all control over the business in the Southern region. They are also having installations and LPG bottling plants, aviation stations, depots, offices throughout the Country. It supplies LPG cylinders, kerosene, petrol and diesel to industries and domestic consumers in the State. It also supplies Aviation turbine fuel to the Air Crafts operated by various Airlines including Indian Airlines Corporation. The petitioner company is also the controlled industry as per the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. As a PSU, it has public duty to maintain an uninterrupted supply of petroleum products.

3. It is further stated that they have been entering into Long Term Settlements (LTS) with the recognised trade unions from time to time. One such settlement it was entered into for a period from 1.6.1993 to 31.5.1998 expired on 31.5.1998. Thereafter, the trade unions had terminated the settlement and had conducted a fresh negotiation. A settlement under Section 12(3) read with Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ID Act) was entered into on 19.8.2001. The respondents 1 to 3 had also signed the said settlement on 19.8.2001 at New Delhi. The said settlement was valid upto 31.5.2008. It shall continue to be binding until a fresh settlement was arrived at between the parties. The petitioner Corporation had brought out a policy by which the eligibility criteria for unions was revised so as to be invited for the All India meetings and negotiations. The petitioner had fixed a minimum membership strength of 25% of Regional strength as the criteria for being invited to participate in the All India meetings of matters relating to issues culminating in the long term settlements as well as matters of significance. The third respondent Union had failed to meet the eligibility criteria and was not invited for any meeting on the present parleys for entering into long term settlements. The first and second respondents had participated in the meeting.

4. It was further stated that in the last meeting on 21.5.2010, respondents 1 and 2 along with union from other unions had walked out of the meeting. On 29.10.2010, when a meeting was called at Indore, the trade unions had failed to consider the offer made by the petitioner. A further meeting was held at Bhubaneshawar on 02.12.2010 and once again respondents 1 and 2 had boycotted the meeting even though a revised and improved offer was made by the management. It only proves that the unions are not ready for any negotiations with good faith. It was also stated that the first two meetings were held at Pune and Mumbai on 20th and 21st July, 2009 and 20th and 21st August, 2009 respectively. A total of five unions from Eastern Region, Northern Region and Southern Region had attended the meeting. The two unions from the Western Region did not attend the meeting on the issue of representation. The third meeting was held at Kolkatta on 22nd and 23rd December, 2009. The said meeting was presided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Government of India, Ministry of Labour. After a lot of discussions, the representation issue as well as number of Observers to be allotted to the Unions was finally settled. The