1994 Supreme(Mad) 727

High Court of Judicature at Madras
JAYASIMHA BABU
The Enfield India Limited rep. by its Executive Director Mr. Vijay Sachdev
Versus
Enfield Employees Union rep. by its President T. Fenn Walter
Application Nos. 792 & 4751 of 1994 in C.S. No. 11053 of 1994
Decided On :Decided on: 15-09-1994

A strike is illegal and in contravention of Sections 23 and 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act if it is in respect of a matter covered by a settlement which is in operation and attracts the statutory prohibition under Section 23(c).

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - STRIKE - INTERIM INJUNCTION - FACTORIES ACT - TRADE UNIONS ACT - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION - RIGHT TO STRIKE - RIGHT TO PICKET - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - NATIONAL AND PUBLIC INTEREST - LEGALITY OF STRIKE - SETTLEMENT - INTERPRETATION - ENFORCEMENT - POLICE ASSISTANCE - INJUNCTION AGAINST OBSTRUCTION OF MOVEMENT OF MEN, MATERIALS, AND VEHICLES - PICKETING GUIDELINES.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of 'Bullet' motor cycles, sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant union and its members from obstructing or preventing the ingress or egress of officers, supervisors, staff members, apprentices, trainees, temporaries, casuals, contract workmen of essential services, and permanent workmen, staff, and supervisors who were willing to report for work, as well as the movement of finished goods, raw materials, finished components, and materials meant for carrying out other job works through outside contracts. The plaintiff also sought to restrain the defendant from assembling or carrying out any demonstration, shouting slogans, etc., within a radius of 100 meters from the plaintiff's factory premises.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction and that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff. The court found that the strike was prima facie one which was in contravention of Sections 23 and 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and that the actions as well as the stand of the defendant clearly showed that quite apart from engaging in the strike, the defendant and its members were obstructing and preventing the movement of materials and goods, as well as of apprentices and workmen of the contractors. The court also found that national and public interest were adversely affected by reason of the vehicles not being exported in fulfillment of export orders, and the vehicles not being supplied to the police force in several parts of the country who had placed orders for these vehicles.

Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for permanent injunction in relation to an industrial dispute. 2. Whether the strike is illegal and in contravention of Sections 23 and 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Whether the defendant union and its members have the right to obstruct or prevent the ingress or egress of officers, supervisors, staff members, apprentices, trainees, temporaries, casuals, contract workmen of essential services, and permanent workmen, staff, and supervisors who are willing to report for work, as well as the movement of finished goods, raw materials, finished components, and materials meant for carrying out other job works through outside contracts. 4. Whether the defendant union and its members have the right to assemble or carry out any demonstration, shouting slogans, etc., within a radius of 100 meters from the plaintiff's factory premises.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for permanent injunction in relation to an industrial dispute if the dispute is not an industrial dispute nor does it relate to the enforcement of any other right under the Industrial Disputes Act, or if the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the Act. 2. A strike is illegal and in contravention of Sections 23 and 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act if it is in respect of a matter covered by a settlement which is in operation and attracts the statutory prohibition under Section 23(c). 3. The defendant union and its members do not have the right to obstruct or prevent the ingress or egress of officers, supervisors, staff members, apprentices, trainees, temporaries, casuals, contract workmen of essential services, and permanent workmen, staff, and supervisors who are willing to report for work, as well as the movement of finished goods, raw materials, finished components, and materials meant for carrying out other job works through outside contracts. 4. The defendant union and its members do not have the right to assemble or carry out any demonstration, shouting slogans, etc., within a radius of 100 meters from the plaintiff's factory premises.

Final Decision: The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant union and its members from in any manner obstructing or preventing ingress or egress of officers, supervisors, staff members, apprentices, trainees, temporaries, casuals, contract workmen of essential services and permanent workmen, staff and supervisors who are willing to report for work, movement of finished goods, raw materials, finished components, materials which are meant for carrying out other job works through outside contracts and also from assembling carrying out any demonstration, shouting slogans etc., within a radium of 10 metres from the petitioners factory premises at Thiruvottiyur Madras-19.