Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. P. Sen, J.
MP COLLIERY WORKERS FEDERATION CHIRIMIRI
Versus
UNITED COLLIERIES LTD
Decided On : Sep 01,1969
It is worth noticing that the definition of an "owner" in section 2 (1) of the Act is an inclusive one. The managing agents are brought within the ambit of the Act, for the due observance of the regulations framed thereunder. That does not imply that the plaintiff is thereby divested of its rights of ownerships or enjoyment of its property or the right to carryon its business without any let or hindrance. AIR 1961 SC 838 referred to. [Para 6
The managing agents are only interested in their commission out of the profits, whereas the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss by the closure of the mine and, therefore, directly affected. The managing agents are only indirectly affected in so far as with the loss of profits, there would be a diminution in the amount of their commission. [Para 7
(2) Trade Unions Act, 1926 - S. 18 (1) - scope of - immunity from action when available.
The immunity can be had only if one or more persons acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union, or a branch of a trade union, in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, attend at or near a place where a person resides or works or carries on business, or happens to be, if they so attend merely for the purpose of "peacefully" obtaining or, communicating information, or of "peacefully persuading" any person to abstain from working. Thus, no wrong, civil or criminal, is committed by stationing pickets who cause no violence, obstruction, or nuisance or in holding orderly and peaceful meetings and or demonstrations in furtherance of a trade dispute. In other words, if an act is done by a person or persons in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of a strike or lock out declared illegal by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is not actionable under section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 926, on the ground "only" that it induces some other person to break a contract of employment, or that it is an interference with the trade business or employment of some other person, or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or of his labour as he wills. [Para 9
It is settled both on principle and authority that if there be threats or violence, this section gives no protection, for there is then some other grounds of action besides the ground that "it induces some other person to break a contract" and so forth. Thus, where inducement is accompanied by illegal means, such as violence, intimidation, coercion, obstruction, molestation, etc., neither the registered trade union nor its branch or its officials, can plead section 18 (1) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 as barring the jurisdiction of a civil Court from entertaining an action in damages for or an action to prevent the commission of such actionable wrongs. [Para 10.
(3) Constitution of India - Art. 19 (1) (f) & (g) - fundamental rights - nature of - conflict of rights - how to be resolved - industrial unrest and fundamental rights.
Fundamental rights have their own limitations. The liberty of an individual to do as he pleases, is not absolute. It must yield to the common good. Absolute or unrestricted individual rights do not, and cannot, exist in any modern state. There is no protection of the rights themselves, unless there is a measure of control and regulation of the rights of each individual in the interests of all. Whenever, such a conflict comes before a Court, it is its duty to harmonise the exercise of competing rights. The share-holders and the plaintiff company have their right to possess the colliery and to enjoy all the benefits which are ordinarily attached to the ownership of property under Art 19 (1) (f). They also have the fundamental rights under Art. 19 (f) (g) to carry on their trade or business without any let or hindrance. As against this, the workmen have their fundamental rights under Art. 19 (a), (b) and (e). The workmen cannot in exercise of the said rights, have any such thing as absolute or uncontrolled liberty to commit acts of vandalism or of physical violence or intimidation which would hamper the fights of the owners of the colliery. Freedom of expression means the right to express one's convictions and opinion freely i.e., the liberty to ex press or propagate one's own views or the views of others through any medium. But the law does not allow any person to can another person by any offensive or derisive name or to threaten, annoy or offend that person while he is lawfully engaged in his avocation. Similarly, no one has a fundamental right to hold meetings of any kind on private property or to trespass upon such property. [Para 16
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 - O. 39, R. 1 - grant of temporary injunction - discretion of the trial Court - may not be interfered with unless not based on sound judicial exercise of discretion - injunction in case of Industrial unrest.
The grant of a temporary injunction under the powers conferred by Order 39, rule 1, C.P.C., is a matter of discretion of the Judge trying the suit. If the Court, which grants the injunction, rightly appreciates the facts and applies to those facts the true principles, then that is a sound exercise of judicial discretion, and a Court hearing an appeal from such an order would not ordinarily interfere. [Para 4
All that the plaintiff-company wants is the prevention by a temporary injunction acts of violence, intimidation and coercion by the trade union officials, which has not only paralysed the normal working of its mines but has created terror, alarm and unrest among the workers and the members of its staff. From this point of view, the Court undoubtedly has the power to grant a temporary injunction restraining the commission of such acts. Injunction may be issued by a Court against uttering words which have the effect of force and incite acts of violence. [Para 15
( 1. ) THE defendants have filed this appeal under Order XLIII, rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of the Additional district Judge, Ambikapur, dated 10th March 1969, making absolute the ad interim temporary injunction granted ex parte by him on 22nd February 1969 under Order XXXIX, rule 1 of the Code.
( 2. ) SHORTLY stated, the facts are that the workers of the North Chirimiri colliery, owned by the plaintiff-company, went on strike in order to support their demand for wages as per the Coal Wage Board Award. The Madhya pradesh Colliery Workers Federation, which is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, through its North Chirimiry Colliery branch, which is the recognised union of workers and the office bearers thereof, have been espousing the cause of the workers, by organising meetings before the union office and elsewhere, taking out processions on the public roads and the residential colony of the colliery and holding demonstrations in connection therewith. The plaintiff-company, in the meanwhile, instituted the present suit for grant of a perpetual injunction. The defendants 1 to 18 arc the trade union, its branch and the office bearers of the union. The plaintiff alleges that the entire working in the mines has been paralysed by the violent demonstrations held by the union, the threatening of the workers and members of the staff and by acts of criminal trespass, intimidation and violence on the part of the union officials, both at the colliery office and at the Chirimiri railway siding and also within the residential area. It is alleged that 200/300 persons from outside the colliery area have been marching and parading the. roads and the residential colony armed with lathis raising slogans and threats against the management with a view to terrorise it and the workers. The plaintiff accordingly filed the suit for protection of its legal rights by the grant of a perpetual injunction and pendente lite applied for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for the prevention of such criminal activities on the part of the union and its office bearers. Some of the office bearers, i. e. defendants 4,6,7,8,11,12,14 and 15 are either not employed in the mines or are dismissed employees.
( 3. ) THE injunction granted by the learned Judge is in the following terms:-
( 4. ) THE grant of a temporary injunction under the powers conferred by order XXXIX, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code is a matter of discretion of the judge trying the suit. If the Court, which grants the injunction, rightly appreciates the facts and applies to those facts the true principles, then that is a sound exercise of judicial discretion, and a Court hearing an appeal from such an order would not ordinarily interfere [see, Durga Das v. Nalin Chandra nandan and others (AIR 1834 Cal. 694.)].
( 5. ) THE learned counsel, however, urges that the learned Judge has acted on wrong principles and, therefore, an interference is called for. He urges that the learned Judge has neither applied his mind to the requirements of Order XXXIX, rule 1, nor has he cared to determine the limits of his own jurisdiction, in regard to a matter involving normal trade union activities. Alternatively, he urges that the nature of injunction granted was wholly unwarranted, by the terms of Order XXXIX, rule 1, and the order must, therefore, be struck down. He has advanced the following three grounds in support of the appeal: -
(i) The suit as framed was not maintainable and therefore the plaintiff had no prima facie case. Apart from this, it would suffer no irreparable injury if no injunction was granted.
(ii) No such application could be entertained against the Madhya pradesh Colliery Workers Federation, or its North Chirimiri Colliery Branch and its office bearers, having regard to section 18 of the Act and Articles 19 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India.
(iii) The injunction cannot be supported i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
