Madras High Court
M/S. Orchid Chemicals & ... vs B.Ramakoteswara Rao on 21 April, 2007
Author: S.Ashok Kumar
Bench: S.Ashok Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.4.2007
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR
CRP (PD) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2007
and
M.P. Nos. 1+1+1 and 2+2+2 of 2007
M/s. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,
rep. By Senior Manager
Orchid Towers,
313, Valluvar Kottam High Road,
Nungambakkam
Chennai 34 ..Petitioner
Vs
1. B.Ramakoteswara Rao
2. Mr.A.Balaji
3. Nagamalla Reddy S.
4. Mr.Y.Shivasankar Reddy
5. Mr.A.Ramachandra Reddy
6. Mr.K.N.Ponnurangam
7. Mr.A.Rajasekaran
8. Mr.M.Elumalai
9. Mr.Loganatha Reddy
10. Mr.Janardhanam
11. Mr.P.V.Ghan Shyam
12. Mr.P.Srinivasulu
13. Mr.MA.Kalai Selvam
14. Mr.G.Elango
15. Mr.Mr.Veeraswamy
16. Mr.V.Sreenivasulu
17. M/s.Orchid Employee's Union
rep.,by its President at
No.32, Padavettanam Koil St.,
No.104, Kannagapattu Village
Thiruporur Post
Chengelpet Tk. ..Respondents
Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the common order passed in I.A.Nos:1489 to 1491 of 2006 in O.S.No: 360 of 2006 dated 13.3.2007 by the learned District Munsif, Madurantagam.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Viduthalai, S.C. for Mrs.A.V.Bharathi
For Respondent : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for M/s.Row and Reddy
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the common order of dismissal of the I.A.Nos:1489 to 1491 of 2006 in O.S.No: 360 of 2006 dated 13.3.2007 by the learned District Munsif, Madurantagam, filed by the petitioner-company to restrain the respondents and the members of the 17th respondent-Union from assembling within 100 meters of the boundary of its company and restraining them from obstructing the ingress and egress of vehicles carrying raw materials and finished products, staff bus and other vehicles in to the petitioner-company and also obstructing the loyal workers, foreign customers and other visitors from entering into the petitioner's company and getting out of the company till the disposal of the suit.
2. The case of the petitioner-company is that it is a manufacturer of life saving drugs, antibiotics and other pharmaceutical products. It is an export oriented company with a turn over of more than Rs.800 crores, earning a foreign exchange of Rs.620 crores for the accounting year 2005-2006. It is one of the top 5 companies in the world manufacturing cephalosporin and has got orders for over two hundred crores. During the regular course of business issued transfer orders dated 18.12.2006 to the respondents 1,3,13 and 14 on 19.12.2006 directing them to take charge on the dates specified in the transfer orders. On 20.12.2006 the petitioner company received a fax message stating that the 17th respondent Union has been formed with a list of persons described therein as its office bearers. On 20.12.2006 the 17th respondent and few other employees unlawfully stopped their work and created an industrial unrest causing huge loss to the company. They have prevented the workers who were working in the first and second shift and the other loyal workers of the company and the conduct of the respondents amounted to an illegal strike without notice and a complaint was preferred to the Inspector of Police, Thiruporur and thereafter the company had suspended the respondents 1 to 14 and dismissed the respondents 15 and 16. On 21.12.2006 the petitioner company claims that it had received a notice from the Dy.Commissioner of Labour, Chennai directing it to appear before it on 26.12.2006. On the same date it issued charge memos to the respondents 1 to 14. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents assembled at the main entrance of the company and started to obstruct the ingress and egress of the loyal workers, foreign customers and visitors of the company. They had also warned the officials that they would obstruct the vehicle transport and apprehending that the respondents might resort to their unlawful attempts the petitioner company filed the suit along with the three I.As for the interim reliefs as stated above.
3. Though the learned District Munsif, Madurantgam initially granted ex parte interim orders in the I.As.,but vacated the same and dismissed the three I.As., on a consideration of the avermetns of both parties and after conducting an enquiry on the following grounds:
(i) There is no evidence or any materials to show that an illegal strike was conducted on 20.1.2006;
(ii) The transfer of important functionaries of the 17th Respondent-Union to the Units not related to Drug manufacturing is an vindictive action of the petitioner-company which is contravention of immunity provided under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926;
(iii)There is no evidence to show that the respondents had in fact prevented the petitioner's employees or vehicles from moving in and out of the premises and on mere apprehension the relief cannot be granted. Further, if the reliefs prayed for in the I.As are granted it would virtually amount to granting the very decree in the suit;
(iv) The petitioner-company has not even chosen to appear before the Dey.Commissioner of Labour to challenge the claim made before him by the labour union;
(v) There is no equity or prima facie case made out or there exists a balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner-company.
4. But a perusal of the order would show that the trial court under the guise of equity, establishment of prima facie case, and existence of balance of convenience has gone to the extent of deciding whether there was a legal or illegal strike, whether the activities of the respondents are immuned under Section 18 of the Trade Union Act an thus took the role of the Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal.
5. According to the petitioner-company on 19.12.2006 it issued the transfer orders dated 18.12.2006 in its regular course of business to respondents 1,3,13 and 14 directing them to take charge at various branches of the company. It is contended that the petitioner-company is going through an expansion phase in various locations and experienced and trained manpower for such locations are necessary and therefore such transfers have been effected. In fact these transfers have been discussed with the internal forum of the workmen for over two months period and therefore it cannot be treated as an vindictive attitude of the company. But, suddenly on 20.12.2006, the respondents along with some other employees prevented other employees from carrying out manufacturing work, came out of the work spot and crated industrial unrest inside the factory premises and they went to the extent of not allowing the vehicles carrying raw materials into the work spot or allowing the vehicles carrying finished goods for supply. They also prevented the employees from attending the workshop conducted by the Inspector of Factories and Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories and Joint Chief Inspector of Factories on "Improvement of Productivity" on that day and pull out workers from the training hall forcefully and due to which the officials from Inspectorate of Factories abandoned the workshop and left the plant. Thereafter on receipt of police complaint, the Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police tried to convince the employees, which lasted for 45 hours. The petitioner-company in order to maintain peace and order and not to stop the manufacturing process, forced to suspend respondents 1 to 14 from service and dismiss respondents 15 and 16. The reason for dismissing the respondents 15 and 16 was due to the fact that both of them were working in the Safety Department of the Plant and without considering the importance of the safety of the manufacturing area, they had joined hands with the other respondents and participated in the agitation. The company adopted 'no work no pay' policy for other employees and other employees resumed to work on the next day. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that there is no such strike on 20.12.2006 is totally false. On 22.12.2006 charge memo was issued to respondents 1 to 14 for the incident that took place on 20.12.2006 to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them. But instead of giving explanation to the charge memo, they assembled at the entrance of the factory and obstructed entry of workers etc., The respondents 1 and 13 who are actually officers of the company also indulged in such acts. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 13 were also dismissed on 27.12.2006. In the mean time some of the respondents approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, and the petitioner is attending the proceedings held on 26.12.2006 and 9.4.2007.
6. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC, the petitioner has to exhaust the remedy of appeal before the Sub Court, Chengalpattu and instead of invoking the appellate jurisdiction, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this court is not sustainable and therefore the revision petitions are not maintainable. Further it is the finding of the trial court when the respondents formed themselves into a trade union on 18.12.2006 and informed the petitioner about the same, on the very next day on 19.12.2006 respondents 1, 3, 13 and 14 who are all office bearers of the trade union were transferred to distant places, which is nothing but vindictive act on the part of the petitioner company. Some of the respondents who have been all along experienced in the drug manufacturing process unit, have been transferred to Units where no such activities are being carried on. The petitioner without participating in the conciliation with ulterior motive has approached this court by filing the revision petitions. The respondents issued a strike notice only on 2.1.2007 and by such time the respondents 1 to 14 were issued with charge memos and respondents 1,15, 13 and 16 were dismissed without any enquiry. It is also contended that if the management refused to participate in the conciliation and the workers protested on that, then the action of the workers was perfectly justified and they are entitled to wages.
7. In support of his contention, the Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision in B.R.Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others reported din 1989 (4) SCC 710, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"15.....Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act provides for registration of a Trade Union if all the requirements of the said enactment are fulfilled. The right to form associations and unions and provide for their registration was recognised obviously for conferring certain rights on trade unions. The necessity to form unions is obviously for voicing the demands and grievances of labour. Trade Unionists act as mouthpieces of labour. The strength of a trade union depends on its membership. Therefore, trade unions with sufficient membership strength are able to bargain more effectively with the managements. This bargaining power would be considerably reduced if it is not permitted to demonstrate. Strike in a given situation is only a form of demonstration. There are different modes of demonstrations. e.g., go slow, sit in, work to rule, absenteeism, etc., and strike is one such mode of demonstration by workers for their rights. The right to demonstrate and, therefore, the right to strike is an important weapon in the armoury of the workers. This right has been recognised by almost all democratic countries. Though not raised to the high pedestal of a fundamental right, it is recognised as a mode of redress for resolving the grievances of workers. But the right to strike is not absolute under our industrial jurisprudence and restrictions have been placed on it"......
8. Admittedly, we are not concerned with whether the strike is legal or illegal or there was an industrial unrest as such issues have to be decided at the appropriate forum. Even assuming that the strike is a legal strike, the petitioner company which is a manufacturer of Pharmaceuticals products dealing mainly with life saving drugs and the same falls under the realm of Public Utility Services and such drugs are in great need to the public at large, such manufacturing process cannot be disturbed by the employees by indulging in unwarranted and illegal strike which is prejudicial to public interest. Such obstruction and disturbance would certainly cause loss of foreign earnings and industrial unrest in the factory. The question of ingress and egress of vehicles, staff bus, entry of loyal workers, foreign visitors, looked at any angle, cannot be prevented as the willing workmen are entitled to free ingress and egress.
9. It is also pertinent to note that even after the respondents gave an undertaking that they will not participate in any illegal strike, they have indulged in acts of vandalism. According to the petitioner, after I.A,s were dismissed on 13.3.2007, on 27.3.207 the respondents have uprooted a tree in front of the factory gate in order to put the banners quoting unwarranted slogans against the petitioner company. They also blocked the entry gate of the factory causing problem to the other employees and officers on 28.3.2007. They have also gone to the extent of physically assaulting the Manger (Public Relations) who had been hospitalised. He also gave a police complaint in that regard and FIR has been registered. It is also alleged that on 5.4.2007 a few other employees supporting the respondents unlawfully stopped work n the petitioner's company and more so they indulged in acts of violence and vandalism, resorted to manhandling/beating the management staff and loyal employees, coercing them to joint the strike. It is also alleged that they switched off the refrigeration system, air compressor, process plants and nitrogen plant causing a threat to the entire factory complex by act of mob violence, which may lead to over heating of chemical process reaction with serious consequences, endangering the life of thousands of so many other loyal workers and the public at large. They also damaged the company properties, like computers, printers, fire extinguishers, fire alarms telephone systems and such reckless acts of the employees instigated by the respondents caused a huge loss. Photographs revealing damages to the properties and even a video camera used on the said occasion being damaged into pieces were also produced and perused. Therefore, 36 employees who were actually involved in such violence and atrocities have been suspended in order to protect the safety of the plant as well as its surroundings. In that regard, a police complaint has also been lodged. Therefore, it is clear that the dismissal of the I.A., in fact has only paved way for obstruction of the ingress and egress of the vehicles, staff bus, loyal workers to enter the factory premises.
10. It is also denied by the petitioner-company that it did not attend the conciliation proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, and in fact it is attending the conciliatory proceedings right from 26.12.2006 and it may not be a relevant consideration for deciding the merits of the applications. The trial court's observation that if there had been such a strike on 20.12.2006, then the Police would have registered a case and in the absence of the same it has to be taken that no such incident had taken place, and such a finding may not be correct, because it is not denied that on the alleged date of incident the police party headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police have struggled for about 45 minutes and disbursed the mass of employees who were indulging in violence.
11. It is also the case of the petitioner-company that the alleged formation of 17th respondent containing a list of persons is without notice to the petitioner company and the 17th respondent-Workers Union was registered as Orchid Employees Union with registration No.275/KPM, whereas the other transactions are being carried out under a different name Orchid Chemical & Pharmaceuticals Employees Union which is against law and that being so, any order passed against such union is invalid in the eye of law.
12. It is also contended that there are catena of cases to show that in a public utility service like the petitioner-company which is manufacturing life saving drugs, its day to day activities shall be carried on without any interruption or hindrance by its employees. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the workers are indulging in violence and vandalism which cannot be permitted on any account.
13. In this respect, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-company relied on a decision of this Court in M/s. Audco India Ltd., Vs. The Audco India Employees' Union and others (1989 (II) MLJ 200), wherein M.Srinivasan,J., held as follows:
"11. In Coimbatore Periyar District Motor Transport Munnetra Sangam Vs. M/s.Siva Kumar Transport Etc., (99 L.W 409) a writ petition was filed for issue of mandamus against two police officials directing them to give police protection for taking out the petitioner's busses from the garage and helping them to run on their respective routes. It was alleged that in violation of a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act, the workers went on strike and prevented the petitioners from taking out the busses and plying them on their routes. The writ petition was allowed by a single Judge and an appeal was filed by the workers' union after obtaining leave to appeal as the union was not a party to the writ petition/ The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant was that the effect of the strike resorted to by the workers would be weakened if the employers were allowed to ply the vehicles on the respective routes and as there was no allegation of violence or indulgence in unlawful acts, police protection ought not to be given. Negativing the said contention and distinguishing the decisions cited by the appellant's counsel, the division Bench dismissed the appeal after laying down the law in the following terms:
"4. The above decisions cannot be taken s laying down any abstract proposition of law without any relation to the facts that in every case of strike, the workers are entitled to prevent the removal of the goods, or ingress or egress of raw materials or other products, or that the workers are entitled to gherao and prevent people from entering or coming out of the factory or the industrial premises. The ratio of the judgments, in our opinion, is that if the preventing of removal of the goods would involve only the monetary interest of the management and no public intreat is involved, the court may consider not helping the management and not interfering in the dispute by way of any injunction orders. However, if the facts and circumstances are such that it is just and necessary to permit the goods to be removed in order to prevent any waster or loss of goods, or that the acts in relation to which injunction is prayed for will have no effect on public interest, then injunction against interfere with removal of goods shall not be granted. If not granting an injunction will tantamount to affecting public interest, the court is duty bound to give such protection as is needed. Therefore, each case will have to depend on facts.
5. There is dispute that the first resondent in this case is a bus operator and is plying its busses between Tiruppur and Satyamangalam and between Tirupur Bus stand and Cheyur in Tirupur town service. Having regard to the fact that in this case not only the interest of the non strike workmen but also the interest of the public are involved, and if the rote busses are not permitted to ply on the routes, the public will be inconvenienced, no injunction against taking busses shall be granted. We are satisfied that the public interest outweighs in this matter. Not permitting the busses from being taken out from the garage and put on the rods would certainly inconvenience the public. The alternative suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant that if there is such a great inconvenience and prejudice caused to the public, the government may step in an take appropriate action, in our opinion, is not an answer and cannot be a justifiable ground for preventing, the busses from being taken out of the garage and put on the road.....
12. Applying the above test laid down by the Division Bench to the fact of this case, I am satisfied that this is a fit case in which this Court should help the applicant to carry on its activities and fulfill its obligations to supply materials to public sector undertakings of national importance. Cessation of work in the plaintiff's factory causes great hardship and heavy loss not only to the plaintiff company but it has a far reaching consequence of causing great inconvenience to other vital industries of the nation which will considerably affect the nation's economy as such. It will also prevent the earning of foreign exchange and the reputation of the country in the field of international trade and commerce will be at stakes. The balance of convenience is undoubtedly in favour of the applicant".
14. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the decision in Ram Singh and others Vs.Ashoka Iron Foundry and others (1`994 (I) LLN page 797, wherein in a similar situation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows:
"9...As per the averments in the plaint, dispute per se appears to be of civil nature and the court has rightly taken the cognizance of the same. Vide the impugned orders, the Courts have merely restrained the defendants, on whose behalf the present petition has been filed, from holding any meetings, demonstration, sitting on dharnas in and around the premises of the plaintiffs and within a radius of 50 meters from the premises of the plaintiff and also from interfering or obstructing with the right of the plaintiffs, its staff, visitors, clerks, etc., and also from damaging the building and also restraining the defendants from preventing entry of other workers. Such a restrain order cannot be construed either as unjust or amounting to curtailing the just trade union activities of the defendants. With the above mentioned stipulation, the defendants are at liberty to carry on their legitimate trade union activities peacefully."
15. In Enfield India Ltd., Vs. Enfield Employees Union, reported in 1994 (2) LW 476, this court held as follows:
"13. In this case, the plaintiff is not seeking to enforce any right created by the Industrial Disputes Act. The relief sought is one of injunction to prevent the employees from interfering with the plaintiff's legal rights, under the general or common law in relation to the movement of men, materials and vehicles into and out of the plaintiff's factory. The relief so sought is not one which can be granted by the authorities constituted under Industrial Dispute Act. The plaintiff has not questioned the right of the defendant to go on strike and that right is not sought to be interfered with by the suit. I therefore, hold that the present sit is maintainable and the same is not barred expressly or impliedly by any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or Trade Unions Act.
14. The case of the workmen is that strike being the collective weapon of the workmen in their process of bargaining with the employer with regard to their terms and conditions, on their services, their should be no interference with the exercise of that right. Strike is defined under Section 2(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act as follows:
"Strike" means a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination or a concerted refusal or a refusal under common understanding, of any number of persons who are or has been-- so employed to continue to work or to accept employment"
Thus strike means a cessation of work by the employees acting in combination, or a concerted refusal to continue to work or to accept employment. None of the provisions of the Trade Unions Act or of the Industrial Disputes Act confer a right on the striking workmen to obstruct the ingress and egress to the premises of the employer or interfere with the movement of men, materials and vehicles into or out of the premises of the employer. The right of the workmen are protected in the manner and to the extent provided in the Trade Unions Act, Industrial Disputes Act and other enactments governing labour and industry.
15. In this context, it is useful to refer the following observations by a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Chandrana Brothers V. Venkata Rao (1976 I Kant L.J. 245):
"The workers may resort to peaceful picketing i.e., the marching to and from before the premises of an establishment. They may be accompanied by the carrying and display of sign boards, placards or banners bearing statements in connection with the dispute. They may also request politely the employees not to assist in the running of the business and ask the customers not to patronise that establishment. Such acts would constitute peaceful picketing and are protected under Section 18. The demonstration may cause inconvenience and embarrassment to the employer. It may be intended to bring pressure on the management to concede to the workers' demands. But such demonstration is protected so long as it is peaceful and does not turn violent. The employer can claim that the ingress and egress to their business premises should be protected from obstruction. He is also entitled to protection if there is imminent danger to life or property. If the picketing ceased to be peaceful or becomes a nuisance or endangers public peace it ceases to be lawful. If the picketing is carried out in such principles or in such manner as is likely to intimidate or to obstruct or molest he employees or customers against their will, it would be unlawful. Any show or threat of violence of any other unlawful threat likely to crate fear in the mind of a reasonable man will render picketing unlawful. Pickets are not entitled to compel people to listen to them or to obstruct by deliberately standing their way or catching hold of their arms, they are also not entitled to obstruct passage of vehicles by lying down in the highway in front of them or otherwise blocking the highway. They are not entitled to pester those persons who do not wish to listen to them and who have requested them to desist. Right to picket is a very intangible one which is closely limited by the equal right of others to go about their lawful affairs free from objection, molestation or intimidation. The methods of persuasion are limited to oral and visual placards and should not be extended to physical obstruction of a vehicle or a person which would be illegal. Each case must depend very largely upon its attending facts and circumstances as to whether or not particular acts complained of are protected under Section 18 or not. When persons are combining and conspiring together and adopt means calculated to intimidate or to coerce the employees or those who wish to become employees from from remaining in or entering his employ, or to prevent employers customers or others who wish to have dealings with him from so doing by means of force, threats intimidation or violence resulting in serious injuries to plaintiff's business, then such acts would not be protected."
26. The plaintiff, has made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction, and the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. The strike is prima facie one which is in contravention of Ss.23 and 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the actions as also the stand of the defendant clearly shows that quite apart of engaging in the strike, defendant and its members are obstructing and preventing the movement of materials and goods, as also of apprentices and workmen of the contractors. National and public interest are adversely affected by reason of the vehicles not being exported n fulfillment of export orders, and the vehicles not being supplied to the police force in several parts o the country who have placed orders for these vehicles. The interim injunction will not in any way interfere the defendants right to strike or with the exercise of any other rights conferred by the industrial Disputes Act or the Trade Unions Act."
16. In Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs. Vidya Sagar Hospital Employees Union, reported in LLJ 2006 (I) Delhi 245, he High Court of Delhi, held as follows:-
"15. The defendants or their employers have no business or cause to cause inconvenience, harassment or to extend threats to plaintiff, his employees and cause obstruction to these or others who may visit the plaintiff. Such conduct on the part of the employees of the defendants for the redressal of their grievance to put pressure indirectly and disrupt the functioning of the plaintiff is not permissible nor can be permitted in the present facts and circumstances.
Xx xx xx xx xx
17. In totality of the circumstances, I, therefore, hold that the threat of strike given by the defendant is illegal and I restrain the defendant and its members from holding demonstration, dharnas, slogan shouting and in any way blocking the ingress and egress of the plaintiff, its office bearers, patients, visitors and other persons visiting the Hospital in any manner, however, they may be entitled to stage peaceful demonstration and dharnas at a distance of 200 meters from the outer radius of the hospital known as VIMHANS, 1, Institutional Area, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi."
17. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-company and also taking into consideration of the subsequent conduct of the respondents that after the interim orders of injunction in the Interlocutory Applications filed by the company were vacated and they were indulging in acts of violence endangering life of other workmen and common public and preventing the ingress and egress of men and material which is detrimental to public health, I am of considered view that, prima facie, there is contravention of Section 22 of the Act and in such circumstances, in the interest of public at large, the respondents should be restrained by giving suitable orders of injunctions. In the present case, the alleged cause for the incident took place on 20.12.2006, is pursuant to the transfer orders issued to some of the employees and subsequent issue of charge memos and dismissal of some of the respondents. The petitioner-company challenges the very legality of formation of the 17th respondent-workers union. Anyhow, there is a conciliation proceedings pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai and it is better that both the parties pursue their remedy before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai and get redressed. Failing which, the matter would be referred to Industrial Tribunal as per the statutory provision and till then, the status quo shall be maintained, that is to say, the smooth functioning of the manufacturing process and supply by the petitioner-company, which is a public utility service, shall not be interrupted by any employees.
18. For the reasons stated above, all the CRPs are allowed, setting aside the orders passed in the respective I.A.Nos: 1489 to 1491 of 2006 in O.S.No: 360 of 2006 dated 13.3.2007 by the learned District Munsif, Madurantagam. The respondents and members of 17th respondent-Union are restrained to assemble within 100 metres of the boundary of the factory premises of the petitioner-company and raise slogans or obstruct the ingress and egress of the vehicles carrying raw materials and finished products, staff bus and other vehicles into factory premises, and obstruct the loyal workers, foreign customers and other visitors from entering into the petitioner company and getting out of the same till the disposal of the suit or the conciliation proceedings, whichever is earlier. The above interim injunctions will not in anyway interfere with the respondents right to strike or with the exercise of any other rights conferred by the Industrial Disputes Act or the Trade Unions Act. Though the workers cannot be prevented from gathering or picketing beyond the limit of 100 metres, such assembling and picketing shall be peaceful and lawful and without in any manner violating the directions given as above.
19. Consequently, all the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
gkv To The District Munsif, Madurantakam.
[PRV/10294]