Bombay High Court
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ... vs Bharat Petroleum Employees Union And ... on 24 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(1)BOMCR819
Author: B.N. Srikrishna
Bench: B.N. Srikrishna, Ranjana Desai
JUDGMENT B.N. Srikrishna, J.
1. In the morning we have delivered a judgment holding that a civil suit cannot be brought to interfere with the right of workmen to go on strike. A writ petition is now presented to us by the petitioners, which is a Government company in the Public Sector, to seek the same reliefs.
2. Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, opposed the writ petition on five grounds. First, he says that section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 would bar the writ petition from being entertained. In our view, the contention has no merit. Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, or any other section worded in similar fashion, cannot come in the way of the constitutional Court exercising its constitutional powers.
3. Second, it is contended that writ petition ought not to be entertained because there are disputed questions of fact. As far as the present case is concerned, the fact that there is a strike notice given by the trade unions and that there are pending conciliation proceedings, are not even disputed. These are the only facts required to consider the legality of the strike.
4. Third, it is contended that there is an alternative remedy of approaching the Industrial Tribunal. If this is really an equally efficacious alternative remedy, we fail to see why the respondent unions and the workmen cannot resort to it. If for the trade unions and the workmen it is necessary to strike work to redress their grievances instead of approaching industrial adjudication even in contravention of the provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 then there is equal urgency for an employer in public sector to seek the intervention of this Court in the writ jurisdiction where a strike is likely to cause dislocation of services to the public at large and result in manifest inconvenience and prejudice to the public.
5. Fourth, it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable against a trade union and the workmen. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri Anadi Mukta Sadauru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Samrak Trust and others v. V.R. Rudani and others, appears to be a complete answer to this contention. In fact, the contours of the maintainability of writ petition have now been substantively enlarged by the judgments holding that a writ petition is maintainable against any one who is under a public duty. Prima facie, at this stage, without further debate, we are of the view that every employee in a public sector or a government company operating in public sector for the benefit of the public, and who claims benefit of certain statutory regulations, is under a public duty. Prima facie, it appears to us that the writ petition would be maintainable as against the trade unions operating in the field of this public duty and the workmen also.
6. Finally, it is contended that sections 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 create no obligations in favour of the petitioners which can be enforced by a writ petition. We are not concerned in this writ petition as to whether the obligation is in favour of the petitioners or otherwise. That there is an obligation to be complied with the provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the I.D. Act, 1947 is undisputable. That its breach is punishable by law under section 26 makes it clear that the obligation is a very serious one to be discharged. If this is violated, we see no reason why this Court's writ jurisdiction is not invokable.
7. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the writ petition is maintainable. Hence, Rule is issued.
8. Considering the importance of the writ petition, hearing of the writ petition expedited.
9. Pending hearing and further disposal of the writ petition, we are of the view that the respondents should be restrained from resorting to a strike which is in contravention of the provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and their office bearers and member workmen are restrained from going on an illegal strike in contravention of sections 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 pending the hearing of the writ petition.
10. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of the order duly authenticated by the Associated of this Court.
Writ petition maintainable.