Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2921
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The Management of SNY Autotech Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Sriperumbudur Taluk - Petitioner
Versus
The Inspector of Police, C1 Police Station, Sriperumbudur & Another - Respondents
W.P. No. 23427 of 2018; W.M.P. No. 27342 of 2018
Decided On : 06-12-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S. Ravindran, P. Nehru
For the Respondents: M. Mohamed Riyaz, V. Prakash, K. Sudalai Kannu
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 - Sections 22, 23 - Sections 10(3), 10-A(4-A)and 24 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Article 19(l)(c) - Trade Unions Act, 1926 - Section 18 - Section 18(1) - Section 8 - Industrial Employees Standing Orders, 1946 - Management – Workmen Strike - Case of petitioner is that at instigation of second respondent union, workmen and trainees of company indulged in a strike - Subsequently, strike intensified and striking workmen started sitting right outside factory premises and they also indulged in switching off CCTV cameras installed in factory premises and virtually disabled office staff, executives and other willing workmen to enter into factory and thereby severely impacted manufacturing activities of petitioner company - It is further case of petitioner that workmen involved in strike have also stolen critical components and also programmes relating to high precision machines installed in factory premises - It is further case of petitioner that since situation was going out of control, petitioner company lodged a complaint to first respondent police - Minimum police force was deputed to factory premises - However in view of overwhelming crowd involved in strike, police men deputed were not in a position to take control of situation - Therefore, it let down to a complete breakdown of law and order and industrial peace in and around factory premises – Held, Without giving any prior intimation, 90 employees [1st & 2nd shift] participated in strike in front of Company gate by demanding (a) to permanent trainees; (b) trainee staff to be appointed as permanent labour; (c) to recognize their Union by name "ULF" (d) expecting attractive Salary and (d) not to change employees - On enquiry conducted with petitioner/Management, court came to know that there are totally 118 employees are working in said company [including 90 employees under strike], Presently 28 permanent employees are working, so that production will be decreased, while being so, petitioner to increase production by appointing temporary employees [40 persons] from their Vendors Company - Management informed that they will consider about employment for 15 accused in said FIR, after competition of investigation and Enquiry of Dy. Commissioner of Labout at Irrugattukottai - Further Management informed that employees those who participated in strike, willing to work in their Company as per their norms, they will ready to accept them to re-join for work - From above report, it is clear that a normal atmosphere is not prevailing near factory premises and there is an uneasy tension in air - Therefore, in order to maintain law and order and also in order to ensure free ingress and egress of men and materials, police protection has to be given to petitioner Company, in order to run their day today activities – Petition Disposed Of.
This writ petition has been filed by the Management of SNY Autotech Pvt. Ltd. for a direction to the first respondent police to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner company to enable the willing workmen, staff, officers and other managerial personnel and customers to enter and exit the factory premises, to enable the petitioner to send materials to its customers, to receive the materials including raw materials for process wok inside the petitioner factory premises. In short, the petitioner has sought for police protection for free ingress and egress of men and materials.
2. The case of the petitioner is that at the instigation of the second respondent union, the workmen and trainees of the company indulged in a strike from 31.08.2018 onwards. Subsequently, the strike intensified and the striking workmen started sitting right outside the factory premises and they also indulged in switching off CCTV cameras installed in the factory premises and virtually disabled the office staff, executives and other willing workmen to enter into the factory and thereby severely impacted manufacturing activities of the petitioner company. It is the further case of the petitioner that the workmen involved in the strike have also stolen critical components and also programmes relating to high precision machines installed in the factory premises.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the situation was going out of control, the petitioner company lodged a complaint to the first respondent police on 04.09.2018. The minimum police force was deputed to the factory premises. However in view of the overwhelming crowd involved in the strike, the police men deputed were not in a position to take control of the situation. Therefore, it let down to a complete breakdown of law and order and industrial peace in and around the factory premises.
4. Under such circumstances, this writ petition was filed before this Court seeking for the above mentioned relief.
5. The above writ petition came up for admission and hearing on 10.09.2018. Even at the time of admission, the learned counsel representing the second respondent union took notice and the matter was adjourned to 11.09.2018. This Court after hearing the respective counsel, found that the prima facie case has been made out and therefore directed the first respondent police to provide police protection to the petitioner company to ensure free ingress and egress of men and materials and permitted the respondent union to hold their demonstration 200 meters away from the factory premises. Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time and the interim order granted by this Court was also extended. In the mean time, the second respondent union filed their counter affidavit and the petitioner also filed a reply affidavit for the counter filed by the second respondent.
6. This Court also directed the first respondent police to file a report regarding the situation that was prevailing near the factory premises before the interim order was passed by this court granting police protection. The first respondent police has also filed a report before this Court.
7. The learned senior counsel Mr. S. Ravindran appearing for the counsel representing the petitioner, made the following submissions:
The second respondent union had raised certain disputes regarding services of certain trainees, shifting of certain employees and certain charter of demands and the conciliation proceedings are going on before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram.
From 01.09.2018 onwards, 17 trainees abstained from work and from 04.09.2018, the other workmen also joined them and indulged in strike. Therefore according to the learned senior counsel, the illegal strike was called by the workmen on their own, without any provocation on the side of the petitioner and more particularly when the conciliation proceedings were pending.
The striking workmen unauthorizedly switched off CCTV came
