Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shongtong Karcham Hydel Project ... vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 20 September, 2016
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 1186 of 2016 .
Judgment reserved on: 30.8.2016 Date of Decision: 20.9.2016.
Shongtong Karcham Hydel Project Workers' Union ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. ...Respondents of ______________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
rt The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Dalip Kaith, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr.Anup Rattan,Mr.Romesh Verma, Mr.Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr.Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1, 4 and 7.
Mr.Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.
Mr.Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
Mr.R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amit Dhumal, Advocate, for respondent No. 6.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The Workers' Union of Shongtong Karcham Hydel Project is aggrieved by the action/inaction on the part of the respondents and has filed the instant writ petition claiming therein the following reliefs:-
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 2 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 "i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed that all the mandatory provision of the various Acts as mentioned in the body of the writ petition may very kindly be ordered .
to be implemented with further directions that benefits arising out of these Acts may very kindly be ordered to be paid to the members of the petitioner Union, with interest @ 9% p.a.
ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to get of the decision of conciliation meeting held on 15.3.2015 annexure P-3 implemented with further directions to pay wages to the members of the petitioner union for the rtmonths of December 2015, January 2016, February 2016 and March, 2016 immediately.
iii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to intervene and conduct conciliation meeting and resolve the problems by implementing all statutory norms, in the interest of justice and fair play.
iv) That the notification annexure P-4 imposing prohibitory orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. dated 18.3.2016, may kindly be quashed and set aside."
2. It is averred that respondent No. 2, i.e. Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (for short HPCL) is setting up a 450 MW Hydro Electric project at Powari and most of the construction related activities have been allotted to respondent No. 6, i.e. Patel Engineering Limited, who in turn has further engaged various contractors to execute the work. However, the principal employer for all intends and purposes is still respondent No. 2. It is averred that there has been flagrant violation of the various labour laws, as a result whereof there is complete unrest amongst the workers, who are not even getting their dues and have not been paid the salary for the months of December, 2015, January, 2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 3 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 and February, 2016, which constrained them to submit a demand charter to the employer on 14.3.2016 with copies to the labour .
Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, as also to respondent No. 5, i.e. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. On submission of demand charter, Labour Officer cum-Conciliation Officer arranged a meeting of all concerned on 15.3.2016, in which it was agreed of that the arrears of salary of the workmen will be paid within two days and for rest of the demands a meeting was to be held on rt 17.3.2016. The respondents did not pay the salary to the workers within the stipulated time nor was the further conciliation meeting convened, which constrained the workers to proceed on strike w.e.f. 17.3.2016. It is averred that such situation was forced and created because of the callous attitude of the respondents, who even thereafter instead of convening meeting for redressing the problem of the workers, resorted to oppressive methods, as is evident from the fact that respondent No. 7, i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur immediately imposed prohibition orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and tried to shield the contractors and other respondents. The petitioner Union made various representations, but to no avail, constraining the Union to file the instant petition.
3. Respondent No. 1 i.e. Secretary MPP & P has not chosen to file reply. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have in their joint reply raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the allegations contained therein ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 4 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 are totally misplaced and wrong. It is averred that there is no violation of any of the labour laws and further averred that the .
wages and facilities as per the provisions of the relevant labour laws are required to be provided to the workers by respondent No. 6 at its own. Whereas, the replying respondents have only to release the payment to the contractor after the requisite milestone of as laid down under the contract agreement is achieved by it. It is further averred that till 15.3.2016 payments in the sum of rt `1,62,14,68,537/- has been made to respondent No. 6 and in addition to that a further payment of `25 Crore has been made to respondent on 17.5.2016. It is also averred that the petitioner union has illegally sought support from outsiders, particularly some of the Trade Unions rather than reposing confidence in rule of law and have not only gone on illegal strike, but have resorted to violence. The illegal, wrongful and unruly acts on the part of the members of the petitioner Union have paralyzed the entire work and caused unnecessary delay in the execution of the project which is detrimental to larger public interest. It is averred that due to the delay the State exchequer is losing about approximately `2 Crore per day and the entire project is being held to ransom. It is also averred that the acts on the part of the members of the petitioner union show that they have no respect for the rule of law.
Instead of resorting to legal remedies, they have illegally resorted to strike.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 5 CWP No. 1186 of 20164. The Labour Commissioner, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 4 filed his reply, wherein it has been stated that the .
replying respondent through its functionaries has been persistently taking necessary action against the contractor and its sub contractors for violation of labour laws and in this regard even prosecution cases have been filed before the learned Chief Judicial of Magistrate, Kinnaur at Rekong Peo from time to time. It is on account of constant and continued intervention that unpaid wages rt to some of the workers due up to February, 2016 have been paid during the months of March/April, 2016. It is then averred that the petitioner Union had submitted their demand charter on 14.3.2016 and vide letter dated 15.3.2016, respondents No. 2 and 6 were asked to submit their replies. Thereafter in order to settle the issue, respondent No. 4 had fixed a conciliation meeting on 17.3.2016 at 2:00 P.M. in his office however, the workers (approximately 450) went on strike w.e.f. 14.3.2016 itself at about 4:00 P.M. under the banner of CITU (Center of Indian Trade Union). That apart, a meeting was convened by the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur on 17.3.2016 and a settlement was arrived at. It is averred that the representatives of the petitioner Union were not present in this meeting and again went on strike on 17.3.2016. The strike continued from 17.3.2016 onwards and thereafter conciliation meeting vide notice dated 25.4.2016, was fixed on 27.4.2016, which was attended to by all the parties, but despite best efforts no settlement could be arrived at. Therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 6 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 the Joint Labour Commissioner was specifically deputed to Rekong Peo to hold conciliation meeting, so as to resolve the matter. Such .
meeting was held in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur on 29.4.2016, which was attended to by the representatives of respondent No. 2 and petitioner Union, but the same was not attended to by respondent No. 6 and therefore, no conciliation of could be effected. It is thereafter averred that taking into consideration the report, all the issues raised in the demand notice rt and other issues, which have arisen thereafter have been referred for adjudication to the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal vide notification dated 6.5.2016.
5. Respondent No. 5, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in its reply averred that despite repeated requests respondent No. 6 has failed to produce the records so as to enable it to verify the claims regarding payment of Provident Fund, constraining it to launch prosecution against the establishment of respondent No. 6 and others on 8.6.2016.
6. Respondent No. 6 in its reply averred that the wages to the workers for the period from December, 2015 to January, 2016 already stand paid. It is further averred that though a meeting was held with the representatives of the petitioner Union on 15.3.2016, but no conclusion was arrived at in the said meeting. However, the grievance of the petitioner thereafter has been resolved in the proceedings held with the Deputy Commissioner on 17.3.2016, but despite this the petitioner has illegally proceeded on strike on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 7 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 17.3.2016. Not only this, the members of the petitioner Union have thereafter resorted to rampage causing damage worth crores of .
rupees to the machinery and equipments of the replying respondent, constraining it to lodge various FIRs (36 in number) against such workers. Not only this, the members of the petitioner Union, are indulging in illegal acts of instigating other workers to of stop work and go on strike and even tried to compel the replying respondent to take back those workmen, who have resorted to rt rampage and large scale damage and destruction to public property, which in fact compelled the authorities to pass prohibitory orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.
7. The demand charter submitted by the petitioner Union is with regard to the violation of the provisions of the various labour laws and in particular:
(i) The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Rules made there under;
(ii) Minimum Wages Act, 1948;
(iii) Payment of Wages Act;
(iv) Employees Provident Fund Act;
(v) Registration under Building and other
Construction Workers (Registration of
Employment and Condition of Service) Act, 1996.
In addition thereto relates to following safety measures.
(i) Employees compensation;
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 8 CWP No. 1186 of 2016(ii) Leave;
(iii) Uniform;
.
(iv) Bonus; and
(v) Illegal retrenchment.
8. It appears that some of the issues had been agreed to be settled in the minutes of meeting held on 17th March, 2016, of which reads thus:-
"THAT ON DATED 17TH MARCH, 2016 MEETING WAS HELD rt UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KINNAUR IN HIS OFFICE BETWEEN THE H.P. POWER CORPORATION, PATEL ENGINEERING, HEP WORKERS' UNION REGARDING TO SETTLE THE ISSUE UNDER THE PROVISIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LABOUR LAWS.
1. On 10th March, 2016, a meeting was held between the ShonGthong Workers' Union and Sub Contractors of the Patel Engineering in which it was resolved that all sub contractors of the Patel Engineering HEP shall disburse the wages within the stipulated period as per provisions of the law be paid in the front of the Chief appointed subordinate official of HPPCL, and Patel Engineering. Payment will be started from 1st March, 2016 as per Minimum Wages Act.
The payment of those employees' who have not been disbursed by the sub-contractors, the payment of the previous month i.e. February, 2016 shall disburse the wages within a week and photocopy of the same is may be forwarded to the Labour Officer, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo.
2. That the payment of the wages will be paid all the workers under minimum Labour Act, 1948 and regularly will be paid the overtime.
3. That the identity card, salary receipt and attendance card will be given to all the workers.
4. That the provident funds of all the employees will be deducted under the Provident Funds Act, 1952 and receipt thereof will also be given to the workers.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 9 CWP No. 1186 of 2016
5. That as per the agreement between the Patel Shongthong Karcham HEP and Worker's Union (INTUC) the bonus, leave encashment and daily wages to the tune of 15% shall be given to .
the workers. Beside those contract employees who resides in their own residences shall be given HRA and canteen allowances.
6. That the tunnel allowance shall be given as per rule to the employees working in the tunnel.
of
7. That the basic facilities i.e. rest room, sanitation, drinking water and safety equipment etc. shall be provided to all the workers in their working places.
rt
8. That workers shall not be thrown out of job without any valid reasons and provisions of law.
9. All the skilled workers shall be registered in Building and other Construction Welfare Boards under the Building and other Constructions Act, 1996 and all the facilities given by Board shall be extended to the workers."
9. When the matter came up before this Court on 28.6.2016, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur be directed to have a dialogue with the petitioner and the respondents for an amicable settlement and accordingly a direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner to try and resolve the issue.
10. In compliance to this direction, Deputy Commissioner has filed his affidavit/status report, wherein it is stated that a meeting of all the stake holders was convened on 8.7.2016 and as per the demands of the petitioner Union, all their demands, except Item No. 12, which relates to illegal retrenchment, have been accepted by the representatives of respondent No. 6. It is further averred that respondent No. 6 undertook to pay all the dues to the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 10 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 labourers including ones who had gone on strike and further undertook to give the benefits like leave, uniform, employees' .
compensation as well as safety measures. As per the amicable settlement it had been pointed out by the representatives of respondent No. 6 that 283 labourers were working with it, out of which 108 labourers have been issued show cause notices on of account of their having resorted to illegal strike and whereas criminal cases have been registered against 36 labourers.
rt Respondent No. 6 was asked to reinstate the services of all the labourers, but it denied to reinstate the services of the labourers due to the matter being subjudice before this Court. It is lastly averred that though the Deputy Commissioner had made all sincere efforts and had given three more opportunities to settle the issue, but despite that the petitioner Union again and again reiterated that the strike would be continued until and unless the terminated labourers are not reinstated.
11. There can be no manner of doubt that the members of the petitioner Union are industrial workers covered by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Employees Standing Orders, 1946, Trade Union Act, 1926 and host of other legislations. Going on strike is also one of the modes of recognized form of expression. However, the strikers must obey civilized norms in the battle and not be vulgar or violent hoodlums.
12. This was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and others Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 11 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 Mazdoor Sabha and others (1980) 2 SCC 593 and the relevant observations reads thus:-
.
"129. A selective study of the case-law is proper at this place. Before we do this, a few words on the basis of the right to strike and progressive legal thinking led by constitutional guidelines is necessitous. The right to union, the right to strike as part of collective bargaining and, subject to the legality and humanity of of the situation, the right of the weaker group, viz., labour, to pressure the stronger party viz., capital, to negotiate and render justice, are processes recognised by industrial jurisprudence and rt supported by Social Justice. While society itself, in its basic needs of existence, may not be held to ransom in the name of the right to bargain and strikers must obey civilized norms in the battle and not be vulgar or violent hoodlums, industry, represented by intransigent managements, may well be made to reel into reason by the strike weapon and cannot then sequeal or well and complain of loss of profits or other ill-effects but must negotiate or get a reference made. The broad basis is that workers are weaker although they are the producers and their struggle to better their lot has the sanction of the rule of law.
Unions and strikers are no more conspiracies then professions and political parties are, and being for weaker, need succour.
Part IV of the Constitution, read with Article 19 sows the need of this burgeoning jurisprudence. The Gandhian quote at the beginning of this judgment sets the tone of economic equity in industry. Of course, adventuriet, extremist, extraneously inspired and puerile strike, absurdly insan persistence and violent or scorched earth policies boomerang and are snathema for the law. Within the parameters to the right to strike is integral to collective bargaining."
13. That apart, the right to strike is not absolute under the Industrial jurisprudence and restrictions have been placed on it, by virtue of Sections 10(3), 10-A(4-A), 22, 23 and 24 of the Act, as was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.R. Singh Vs. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 710 in the following terms:-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 12 CWP No. 1186 of 2016"15. Counsel for TFAI also strongly contended that since the strike was illegal, the workers are not entitled to any relief. We see no merit in this submission. The right to form associations or .
unions is a fundamental right under Article 19(l)(c) of the Constitution. 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 recognized obviously for of 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, rt 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. These are to be found in Sections 10(3), 10-A(4-A), 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act" for short). Section 10(3) empowers the appropriate government to prohibit the continuance of a strike if it is in connection with a dispute referred to one of the fora created under the said statute. Section 10-A(4-A) confers similar power on the appropriate government where the industrial dispute which is the cause of the strike is referred to arbitration and a notification in that behalf is issued under Section 10-A(3-A). These two provisions have no application to the present case since it is nobody s contention that the Union s demands have been referred to any forum under the statute." (Emphasis added) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 13 CWP No. 1186 of 2016
14. Thus it is established that right of strike as part of collective bargaining is recognized in law only so long as it is .
peaceful. There is no scope for violence. Workmen cannot be permitted to take law into their own hands. The striking employees/workmen etc. must obey the civilized norms in the battle, desist from using vulgar and intimidating language; indulge of in violent acts or acts which may subversive to the discipline of the industrial undertaking/company etc. rt
15. It is equally settled that the right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under the Constitution of India, but the same is subject to reasonable restrictions as enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Trade Unions or their office bearers can resort to demonstration/dharna but that would be subject to the law of land. The same can be carried out only in a peaceful manner and not in a manner that would stop the working of the management. The management has every right to ensure that its working is not obstructed. Therefore, a balance necessarily has to be struck between the competing interests and to ensure that the work of the management is not disturbed and at the same time workmen can also continue with their activities in a peaceful manner.
16. The workmen may resort to peaceful picketing i.e. marching to and from before the premises of an establishment.
This may be accompanied by carrying and display of sign boards, placards or banners bearing decent statements of the dispute or in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 14 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 connection with the dispute. They may also request politely the other non-striking employees not to assist in the running of the .
project/business and ask the customers not to patronize such establishment. Such acts would constitute peaceful picketing and are protected under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act. These demonstrations may cause inconvenience and embarrassment to of the employer/management and may be initiated to bring pressure on the management to concede to the workmen's demands.
rt
17. However, as observed earlier, such demonstration is only protected so long as it is peaceful and does not turn violent.
The striking employees/workmen cannot obstruct the ingress and egress of the employer/management to their business premises and the employer/management are also entitled to protection if there is imminent danger to their life and property. If picketing ceases to be peaceful or becomes a nuisance or endangers public peace etc., it ceases to be lawful.
18. In Chandrana Brothers and others versus K.Venkata Rao and others (1976) 1 KLJ 245, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has expressed the law lucidly and incisively and it is apt to reproduce paras 18 and 19 of the judgment which read thus:-
"18. The principles which are relevant for the purpose of the present case as can be gathered from the above may be now summarised. A demonstration by the employees is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India provided it is peaceful and orderly. Such a demonstration is, therefore protected even apart from Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Section 18 does not afford immunity for an act of deliberate trespass. The members of a trade union may resort to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 15 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 a peaceful agitation by gathering together either outside the industrial establishment or inside within the working hour. provided it is peaceful and no violence, intimidation or .
molestation is involved and there is no violation of the provisions of law. An act in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute which induces breach of contract on other employees or causes interference with trade, business or employment of some other to dispose of his capital or labour as he wills would not be of actionable, but such inducement or interference must be by lawful means and not by means which would be illegal or wrongful. The display of posters within or outside the place of business is permissible. The workers are entitled to the rt protection of Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act even if the strike is illegal under Section 24(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
19. The workers may resort to peaceful picketing i.e., the marching to and fro 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 the employees or molest the employees or customers against their will, it would be unlawful. Any show or threat of violence or any other unlawful threat likely to create 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 deliberately standing in their way or catching hold of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 16 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 their arms, they are also not entitled to obstruct passage of vehicles by lying down in the high-way in front of them or otherwise blocking the high-way. 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 tangible 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 of methods i.e., the use of the voice and the exhibition of 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 attendings facts and circumstances as to rt 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 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."
19. Adverting to the facts we notice that the members of petitioner Union had on a drop of hat called a strike on 15.3.2016.
We observe so, because once the demand charter of the petitioner Union was under consideration and a meeting had already been fixed on 15.3.2016, then there was no occasion for the members of the petitioner Union to have illegally gone on strike. Not only this, there further action in continuing with the strike with illegal support from the outsiders, particularly some of the trade Unions and thereafter going on rampage, is not only illegal, but reprehensible.
The illegal, wrong and unruly acts on the part of some of the members of petitioner Union cannot be countenanced, whereby ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 17 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 they have paralyzed the entire work and held the entire project to ransom and caused unnecessary delay in the execution of the .
project of national importance, which is detrimental to the larger public interest. This only goes to show that they have no or scant respect for the rule of law or else they would have taken resort to legal remedy.
of
20. That apart, the aforesaid members of petitioner Union have indulged in illegal acts of instigating other workers to stop or rt desist from work and go on strike and have tried to compel the respondents by adopting hand twisting tactics to take back those workmen, who have resorted to rampage and large scale damage and destruction to public property.
21. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to conclude that even if some of the demands of the petitioner Union were genuine, the mode and manner of protest adopted and resorted to by the members of the petitioner Union is totally illegal.
They had no right to obstruct the ingress and egress of the respondents or indulge in large scale violence and destroy public property. The members of the petitioner Union cannot compel respondent No. 6 to take back the workers who are persona-non-
grata and more particularly when their cases are subjudice before the competent Court/authority. Accordingly, the strike of the petitioner is declared illegal.
22. It is then vehemently argued by Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.Dalip Kaith, Advocate that the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 18 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 respondents be directed to at least implement the various labour legislations, as mentioned in the body of the petition and also .
ensure that the respondents follow the safety measures.
23. We find substance in this submission, because the respondents are duty bound and obliged to follow the mandate of the labour laws, which are enacted for the benefits of the workmen.
of
24. In fact, the provisions of the labour laws, particularly Industrial Disputes Act was brought on the statute book with the rt object to ensure social justice to both the employers and employees arid advance the progress of industry by bringing about the existence of harmony and cordial relationship between the parties. This was so observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh versus Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-
Processing Service Society Limited and another (1999) 6 SCC 82, which read thus:-
"5. Before appreciating the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties, it has to be noticed as to under what circumstances the act was enacted and what was the objectives sought to be achieved by its legislation. If cannot be disputed that the act was brought on the statute book with the object to ensure social justice to both the employers and employees arid advance the progress of industry by bringing about the existence of harmony and cordial relationship between the patties. It is a piece of legislation providing and regulating the service conditions of the workers. The object of the Act is to improve the service conditions of industrial labour so as to provide for them the ordinary amenities of life and by the process, to bring about industrial peace which would in its turn accelerate productive activity of the country resulting in its prosperity. The prosperity of the country in its turn, helps to improve the conditions of labour (Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd v. The Workman, AIR (1967) SC 948).::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 19 CWP No. 1186 of 2016
The Act is intended not only to make provision for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes but also to serve industrial peace so that it may result in more production and improve the .
national economy. In the present sociopolitical economic system, it is intended to achieve co-operation between the capital and labour which has been deemed to be essential for maintenance of increased production and industrial peace. The Act provides to ensure fair terms to workman and to prevent disputes between of the employer and the employees so that the large interests of the public may not suffer. The provisions of the Act have to be interpreted in a manner which advances the object of the Legislature contemplated in the statement of objects and rt reasons. While interpreting different provisions of the Act attempt should be made to avoid industrial un-rest, secure industrial peace and to provide machinery to secure the end. Conciliation is most important and desirable way to secure that end. In dealing with industrial disputes, the courts have always, emphasized doctrine of social justice, which is founded on basic ideal of socio-economic equality as enshrined in the Preamble of bur Constitution. While construing the provisions of the Act, the Courts have to give them a construction which should help in achieving the object of the Act."
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. v. The Management of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd., (2006) 3 SCC 297 held as under:-
"The main object of enacting Industrial and Labour laws is to ensure peace and harmony between the employers and the employees in the larger interest of the society."
"The industrial growth leading to economic prosperity largely depends on happy and healthy relationship between employers and employees."
"It is also our bounded duty to give expression to the legislative intention for creating a healthy environment leading to proper understanding and cooperation and in true sense a partnership ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 20 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 between the employers and the employees in cases of industrial disputes."
.
"The interests of the employees which have received constitutional guarantees under the Directive Principles, the interests of the employers which have received a guarantee under Article 19 and other Articles of Part III, and the interests of the community at large which are so important in a Welfare State. It is on these lines that industrial jurisprudence has of developed during the last few decades in our country."
"Both employers and employees have their respective rt obligations. They must have the appreciation of each other's responsibilities, duties and obligations. The Trade Union and Labour Union should understand and appreciate the fact that Labour is not a commodity nor is it a mere supply of Labour force at the management's disposal. Essentially, Labour is the real basis that underlines the production of goods and services. Through the work should the human personality and its sense of responsibility be able to unfold, management should appreciate this and always attribute its success to the trained and effective labour force. It must be understood by all concerns that both the employees and employers are vital for any industry and unless there is proper coordination, a smooth functioning of any industry would be difficult."
26. Adverting to the facts, we may notice that, as regards, the prayer made for payment of wages to the members for the period December, 2015 to March, 2015, the same already stands paid.
27. It has also come on record that even earlier the members of the petitioner Union were constrained to proceed on strike only because respondent No. 6 and respondents No. 2 and 3 had not been scrupulously following the various provisions of the labour legislations meant for the benefit of workmen. In addition to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 21 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 that even the safety measures were not in place. No doubt, this could not have been an excuse for the workmen to have .
proceeded on a strike and resorted to vandalism, but at the same time, this incident in itself does not in any manner give respondents an upper hand, so as to disobey and violate the mandate of law.
28. Apart from the above, we are also of the considered of view that only because of misdemeanor on part of some of the members/representatives of the petitioner Union, the same cannot rt be used as a hand twisting tactics by the respondents for denying the benefits of various labour laws legislations enacted for their benefits. The entire body of the workmen cannot be driven against the wall and compelled to enter into litigation, which obviously to the knowledge of the respondents is a highly time consuming process. The respondents in this way cannot surmount illegal pressure upon the workmen to accept their dictates and terms by creating compelling circumstances.
29. However, at the same time, it does not mean that respondent No. 6 can be compelled to take back in service even those workmen, who according to it are persona-non-grata and those workmen who according to it have actively indulged in disrupting the smooth functioning of the project and destroyed its properties.
30. Now coming to the question of prohibitory orders issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C., we may notice that the initial prohibitory order was issued by the District Magistrate on 18.3.2016 and on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP 22 CWP No. 1186 of 2016 completion of statutory period of two months, fresh notifications have been issued by the State Government from time to time and .
the maximum period of six months is going to expire on 18.9.2016 and therefore, this question need not to be gone into, as it has with efflux of time been rendered academic.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the of considered view that the following directions shall subserve the interest of justice.rt
(i) The petitioner Union shall forthwith call of their strike.
(ii) Respondents No. 2, 3 and 6 would ensure that the benefits of various labour law legislations and safety measures detailed in para 7 (supra) including payment of P.F. are extended and made available within a period of three months from today.
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their costs.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
20th September, 2016 Judge.
(KRS)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:46 :::HCHP