Madras High Court
Raptakos Brett Employee'S Union vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Labour on 1 December, 2014
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01 /12 / 2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
W.P.No.29883 of 2013
Raptakos Brett Employee's Union,
Rep. by its General Secretary,
142, Velachery Road, Guindy,
Chennai 600 042. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Compound,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.
2. Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd.,
142, Velachery Road,
Chennai - 600 042. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent from operating the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and to remove the same from the rest room of male workers as it is contrary to the directions of the first respondent and it violates right to privacy, decency and is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad & M/s.Row and Reddy
For Respondents : R-1 (Court)
Mr.G.Anandgopalan
For M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Company for R-2
- - -
O R D E R
The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner is the General Secretary of the Raptakos Brett Employee's Union. The Union is registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and 78 workers are working in the second respondent-Company and all are members of the Union. Out of these employees, 10 employees are women. The second respondent company is registered under the Factories Act, 1948.
2. The petitioner further submits that by no stretch of imagination one can say that the second respondent is a model employer. They were always fighting with the employees and wanting to impose their decisions. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment reported in 1992 (1) SCC 190 by giving full Dearness Allowance to the workers, the plaintiff Management in order to defeat the benefits of that judgment transferred the establishment from Chennai Unit to Bombay and gave an option to the employees to go to Bombay. By these coercive forces, they coerced the workers to accept their own terms and conditions of service. The petitioner further submits that the wages are also very low. The petitioner further submits that the Management's latest move is to install Closed Circuit Television hereinafter referred as "CCTV" everywhere in their factory at No.142, Velachery Road, Chennai-600 042 to keep a watch whether the workers are working or idling and this was not there earlier at the factory.
3. The petitioner further submits that on an earlier occasion, the second respondent prevented the workers from getting rest during rest hours. He further submits that as per long standing practice, the Management provided 5 relievers who work side by side with regular workers in the shift. The 5 relievers used to look after the production when the other relieved workers went to relieve themselves and relax for 15 minutes reliever break. It is further submitted that the common break system will be followed in the case being shortage of workers. Then during 11.00 a.m., to 11.15 a.m. and evening 3.00 p.m. to 3.15 p.m. all the workers will go to the restroom after stopping the machines. This was the customary practice prevailing with the plaintiff Management all along. The Management took exception to these 5 workers relieving and other workers going and relaxing for 15 minutes. In fact they wanted their workers to work in the 15 minutes without interruption and augment production. They asked the security staff not to allow the workers to go out of factory gate during lunch time and in case they went out, note their names. Their Vice President E.Gouthaman took exception to this inhuman treatment and asked the security personnel not to stop the workers. For this, he was suspended on 08.01.2008. On 08.01.2008, the workmen protested against this arbitrary action. The Management put up a notice dated 11.01.2008 stating that the workers will not be paid the full salary for the month but wages to the extent of production without giving any notice under Section 9 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. The petitioner further submits that on 04.04.2012, the petitioner-Union objected to this method of surveillance. He further submits that the Management ignoring the protest was slowly installing CCTVs everywhere. So far around 38 CCTVs are there in the factory. A most ridiculous situation happened when on 01.10.2013, the second respondent wanted to install CCTV even at the restroom leaving little scope for their privacy. This was contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of Section 9A and Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner further submits that as per the Factories Act, 1948, the State Government permission is obtained before any surveillance system is installed in the restroom. The petitioner further submits that on 11.10.2013, they strongly protested against this method because it invaded their privacy even if they change into their factory uniform. This would be seen in CCTV. In case they take rest casually, it would be seen in CCTV. The petitioner further submits that it invades their right to privacy and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There was a sit down protest on 11.10.2013. The second respondent-Management refused to even have a discussion. They cut one day wages also. Thereafter, on 15.10.2013, the second respondent after the working hours at about 8 p.m installed the CCTVs at the restroom.
5. The petitioner further added that they complained to the first respondent on 16.10.2013 and he directed the second respondent-Management to remove CCTV from the restroom. The second respondent did not heed to his advice. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. The petitioner further submits that when the dispute relating to the dismissal of 5 workers is pending, the second respondent invoked this new service condition of installing CTVs which is contrary to Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner further submits that installing CCTVs is not mentioned in the second respondent's standing order and any introduction of new rules of discipline or alteration of existing rules, except in so far as they are provided in standing orders is in violation of Clause 9 of the Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner further submits that the action of the second respondent in refusing to adhere to the directions of the first respondent is illegal and their action is also contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner entreats the Court to allow the writ petition.
6. The highly competent counsel Mr.N.G.R.Prasad appearing for the petitioner submits that the first respondent herein, viz., the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had conducted an enquiry in the presence of writ petitioner and the second respondent herein, regarding the objection raised by the Union to remove the Closed Circuit Television from the employees restroom since it was causing damage to the Indian Culture and Civilization. The highly competent counsel further submits that the first respondent after hearing both sides, directed the second respondent to remove the said Closed Circuit Television from the employees restroom, but the same was not removed till now. Further, the employer is always picking quarrel with the employees and they wanted to impose their own decision and at their convenience. The employer had installed Closed Circuit Television everywhere in their factory to keep watch of the employees movement and their performance. One of the CCTVs had been installed in the restroom also. The highly competent counsel further submits that usually the workers will go to the restroom after operating machines and they are taking rest from 11.00 a.m. to 11.15 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. to 3.15 p.m. on all working days. Now, the employer is keenly watching the employees in the restroom which is prohibited and being a privacy area. This kind of attitude by the employer is nothing but an insult to the workers to watch their free personal behaviour. The highly competent counsel further submits that the the installation of CCTVs in the restroom violates the decency because they cannot change the factory uniform freely or take rest casually with only inner garments. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to allow the writ petition.
7. The highly competent counsel Mr.G.Anandgopalan, appearing for the second respondent submits that the Closed Circuit Television had been fixed all over the factory in order to supervise the factory premises for the convenience of the Managing Director, who can monitor the same, wherever, he is positioned. Some times, the Managing Director, who is out of the Country or out of Station, hence, for his convenience the CCTVs has been installed for his monitoring of his factory premises. Therefore, the employees civil rights or personal rights or fundamental rights are not affected. Besides, the employees benefits are also not affected. The restroom also is a part of the factory premises. As such, the employees are in no way connected with the Closed Circuit Television.
8. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the first respondent's order, the above writ petition is allowed. Consequently, this Court directs the second respondent to remove the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) from the employees restroom at once since it is being the employees private area, wherein, no factory fixtures or raw materials or produced goods or operations of any kind at the particular restroom. Hence, the employer's viewing on this particular channel is not warranted. This Court's further view is that the employer and employees should maintain a smooth cordial relationship for the welfare of all concerned. Hence, this Court is constrained to give the direction for the removal of the CCTV at the said facility (restroom).
9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs.
01.12.2014
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
r n s
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Compound,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.
C.S.KARNAN, J.
r n s
W.P.No.29883 of 2013
01 / 12/ 2014