Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 589
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep. by its President, Kanchipuram - Appellant
Versus
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep. by its Senior Manager (Personal & Industrial Relations), Madras Atomic Power Station, Kanchipuram - Respondent
S.A. No. 1069 of 2009
Decided On : 14-09-2020
For the Appellant :V. Selvaraj, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Vijayshankar, SCGSC.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19 - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 9 and 100 - Industrial disputes Act - Section 18 and 12(3) – Public sector undertaking - Production of electric power - Prohibited area - Decreed - Suit for permanent injunction - Plaintiff is Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited located within campus of Madras Atomic Power Station - It is a Government of India enterprises - Plaint averment is that, plaintiff’s organisation is a public sector undertaking under Department of Atomic Energy - It is engaged in production of electric power to cater needs of Southern states of India - Considering sensitivity of the plaintiff’s organisation, Government of Tamil Nadu has notified in the gazattee on as prohibited area, the entire area where plaintiff establishment is located - Thereby access to general public is restricted - Contrary to agreement, whenever Union wants to agitate against Management, members of defendant Union used to assemble near west gate and also in front of Administration Building Portico and other prohibited area raise slogans, conduct gate meetings, prevent loyal employees from ingress and egress to plant –Held, plaintiff has demonstrated before Civil Court through Ex.A-4 to Ex.A-8, that members of appellant union in name of gate meeting and slogan shouting are disturbing the industrial peace - Reasonable restriction is imposed on them by Civil Court which has jurisdiction under section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure to try cases of these nature - There is no bar under Industrial Dispute Act or any other statute for Civil Court to entertain suits when the civil right of larger public is affected. The fundamental right of any individual or group of individuals is subservient to fundamental right of larger public - Permitting to gather and agitate, to shout slogan and to gherao within the security sensitive areas like plaintiff premises where atomic plant is installed, may lead to breach of security - It may cause security threat to nation in general and to installation in particular - A restriction of 100 meters away from premises outer compound for all these activities is reasonable and a good balance between fundamental rights of life and liberty of others, fundamental right of trade of plaintiff Management and fundamental right of association vest with defendant Union - Court concur and confirm judgment and decree of Courts below - It is also to be noted that restrain order of injunction is only upto 100 meters from main gate and within prohibited area and not beyond that - Injunction decree cannot be construed as a ban on respondent union activities anywhere beyond 100 meters - In result, Second Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment and decree rendered by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in A.S.No.34 of 2006 dated 19.08.2008 in and by which he confirmed the judgment and decree rendered by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram in O.S.No.54 of 2004 dated 06.01.2006.)
(The case has been heard through video conference)
1. Against the concurrent findings of the Courts below granting permanent injunction, the aggrieved defendant has filed the present second appeal.
2. The plaintiff is the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited located within the campus of Madras Atomic Power Station at Kalpakkam. It is a Government of India enterprises. The defendant is the Employees Union in the plaintiff’s establishment.
3. The plaint averment is that, the plaintiff’s organisation is a public sector undertaking under the Department of Atomic Energy. It is engaged in production of electric power to cater the needs of Southern states of India. Considering the sensitivity of the plaintiff’s organisation, the Government of Tamil Nadu has notified in the gazattee on 03/11/1995 as prohibited area, the entire area where the plaintiff establishment is located. Thereby the access to general public is restricted.
4. In the Joint Consultative Council Meeting held at Mumbai on 26/08/1995, understanding arrived among the Management and the Unions that the Employee’s Union will not conduct any demonstration, slogan shouting, union meeting within 1.6 Kms of the plant premises.
5. Contrary to the agreement, whenever the Union wants to agitate against the Management, the members of the defendant Union used to assemble near the west gate and also in front of the Administration Building Portico and other prohibited area raise slogans, conduct gate meetings, prevent loyal employees from ingress and egress to the plant.
6. On 02/04/2002 in one such gate meeting the crew members of the organisation were badly affected. It caused hardship for the other employees to have ingress and egress to the plant. Being a atomic power plant, it runs round the clock with three shifts. The conduct of the defendant Union members jeopardise the safety and security of the plant.
7. Hence, suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its office bearers, members, agents and any other persons acting on their behalf and their behest, conducting any demonstration, gherao, raising slogans inside the premises or within the prohibited area and also within the 100 meters distance from Central Industrial Security Force ( CISF) main gate ( South gate), conducting sit in strike and preventing other shift workers from attending to their shift work within the plant and prohibited area and also within the 100 meters distance from CISF main gate ( South gate), interfering with the ingress or egress of the employees, officers, customers, guests of the plaintiff to and from the power station in any manner.
8. In their written statement, the defendant Union denied the plaint averments. It denied the existence of any agreement in Joint Consultative Meeting or a Code of Discipline between the plaintiff’s Management and the defendant Union as averred in the plaint. The maintainability of the suit questioned on the ground that the subject matter of the suit is an industrial dispute. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was claimed that the Union has right to agitate in lawful manner after giving statutory notice for strike. Their right to strike cannot be washed away. The south gate is 4 Km away from the operating island which is the important zone containing nuclear installation. The defendants never indulged in any unlawful activities till date. The gate meetings are conducted in a lawful manner without causing any inconvenience to anybody. Being a vexatious litigation the suit has to dismissed.
9. The Trial Court after considering the rival ple
