Bombay High Court
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Petroleum Workmen'S Union And 3 Ors on 7 January, 2019
Author: N.J. Jamadar
Bench: B.R. Gavai, N.J. Jamadar
1 5.wpl.6.2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO. 6 OF 2019
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. .. Petitioner
Vs.
Petroleum Workmen's Union
& Ors. .. Respondents
Mr.Ratnakar S. Pai a/w. Mr.Anand R. Pai and Mr.Aditya S. Bhat I/b M/s.
Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for petitioner.
Mr.Rahul Kamerkar for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI &
N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
DATE : 7TH JANUARY 2019 P.C. 1 The petitioner is a Central Government Undertaking/Company
engaged in the business of refining of crude oil and marketing/retailing of Motor Spirit (MS), High Speed Diesel (HSD), Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF).
2 The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the strike notices, viz., strike notice dated 24th December 2018 given by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the strike notice dated 21 st December 2018 given by respondent No.3. Union who represent workmen employed in the Refinery of the petitioner at Mahul, Mumbai.
3 It is the contention of the petitioner that the settlement which was Shraddha Talekar PS 1/5 ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:35:08 ::: 2 5.wpl.6.2019.doc entered into between the parties on 31 st May 2013 for a period between 2007 to 2016 is still in existence in view of Sub-section 2 of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D.Act). It is also the contention of the petitioner that the conciliation proceedings are pending before the respondent No.4. It is further contended by the petitioner that if the respondents are permitted to proceed on strike, it will cause huge loss to the refinery. The strike will also cause inconvenience to the public at large. It will adversely affect the supply of petroleum products and aviation fuel supply at Air Port causing disruption of fuel supply to defence establishment, Airlines, Air Port, Petrol Pumps. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on various judgments and orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in which orders granting stay has been passed in the cases involving similar circumstances. 5 The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 vehemently opposed the petition and stated that the conciliation proceedings are still pending and scheduled to be held today. The counsel, therefore, states that since the conciliation proceedings are pending, there is no urgency in the present matter. The counsel further states that though the respondents would go on strike, they are willing to give undertaking to this Court that they will not cause any obstacle to anyone and the strike will be peaceful without Shraddha Talekar PS 2/5 ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:35:08 ::: 3 5.wpl.6.2019.doc any violence.
6 In view of the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 19 of the I.D. Act, it could be seen that the settlement shall be binding for such period as is agreed upon by the parties and shall continue to be binding on the parties after the expiry of the period aforesaid until the expiry of two months from the date on which a notice in writing of an intention to terminate the settlement is given by one of the parties to the other party or parties to the settlement.
7 Apart from that, it is to be noted that the petitioner has already been notified vide notification dated 31st August 2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment under the provisions of Section 2 of the I.D. Act, to be the "public utility service" for the purpose of the said Act. The Government of Maharashtra has also issued an order dated 4th January 2019 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section 2(d)(e) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 thereby declaring the following act or acts done by an individual or group of individuals of the respondents Nos.1 to 3 :
"Obstructions or interruption caused by any direct or indirect means in the process or to a person engaged in the process of production, storage, transportation and sale of petroleum and petroleum products such as LPG Petrol, diesel, Kerosene etc. notified as essential commodities by Government of India."Shraddha Talekar PS 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:35:08 :::
4 5.wpl.6.2019.doc to be an offence under the Essential Commodities Act. 8 It could thus clearly be seen that the proposed strike is the offence under the Essential Commodities Act as per the notification dated 4 th January 2019. Apart from that, it is to be noted that if the strike is permitted to go on, it will be in violation of the order issued on 4 th January 2019, in addition to causing huge loss to the petitioner which is a public sector undertaking and as such, also cause a huge loss to the public exchequer. The strike will also have a serious effect on supply of petroleum products and aviation fuel to the Air Port, Airlines, Defence etc. The other businesses and the life of citizens of Mumbai would be affected since the supply of LPG cylinders would be adversely affected. It would also affect the transport and inasmuch as the supply of fuel as well as aviation fuel etc. would be jeopardized.
9 Various orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the following cases would show that they have granted interim orders restraining the respondent Nos.1 to 3 from proceedings further with the strike :-
1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Employees Union & Ors. 1
2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Workmen's Union & Ors.2 1 2001 III CLR 806 2 Unreported judgment in WP(L)/2055/2010 dt.3.09.2010 Shraddha Talekar PS 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:35:08 ::: 5 5.wpl.6.2019.doc
3. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Workmen's Union, Thane & Ors.3
4. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Workmen's Union & Ors.4
5. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Workmen's Union & Ors.5
10 In view of above, we are inclined to issue notice to the respondents, returnable 4th February 2019. Until further orders, there shall be ad- interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c).
11 The petitioner is permitted to communicate this order to the In- charge, RCF Police Station, Chembur and Vashi Naka, Mumbai, respectively.
12 All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order.
[N.J. JAMADAR, J.] [ B.R. GAVAI, J.] 3 2011 III CLR 187 4 Unreported judgment in WP.332/2013 with WP/333/2013, dt.18.02.2013 5 Unreported judgment in WPL.2521/2015, dt.28.08.2015 Shraddha Talekar PS 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:35:08 :::