Bangalore District Court
M/S Parle Products Pvt.Ltd vs Parle Workers Union on 2 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH.32), BANGALORE CITY
Present
Sri. V.B.Suryavanshi, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),
XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JUNE, 2016
O.S.No.6116/2011
Plaintiff: M/s PARLE PRODUCTS PVT.LTD.,
Nirlon House, 254-B, Dr.Annie Besant
Road, Worli, MUMBAI-400 025
Maharashtra
And also having factory at:
15, K.M.Stone, Tumkur Road,
(N.H.No.4), Bangalore-560 073,
represented by Sri B.Balachandra Rai,
Factory Manager.
(by-Sri.B.C.Prabhakar, Adv.)
/VS/
Defendants: 1. Parle Workers Union,
25, Byrappa Layout,
Nagashettihalli,
Bangalore-560 094.
Represented by its General
Secretary Sri Karibasappa Belamuri
2. Sri.Karibasappa Belamuri
S/o not known
Aged about 36 years,
C/o.25, Byrappa Layout,
Nagashettihalli,
Bangalore-560 094.
3. Sri.Honnappa,
S/o Sri B.Bhadur,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.43, I Main, 2nd Cross,
Manjunathanagar, Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore-73.
4. Sri Ramesh Gowda,
S/o K.V.Veeramma, Aged about 29
years, R/at No.40, I Main, 10th Cross,
RHCS Layout, Annapoorneswarinagar,
Nagarbhavi II stage,
Bangalore-560 091.
2 O.S.6116/2011
5.Sri Ramesh K.S,
S/o K.Seetharamappa,
Aged about 29 years, R/at No.11/22,
Chikkabidarakallu, Jayaramappa
Building, Nagasandra Post, Tumkur
Road, Bangalore-560 073.
6.Sri.Kemparaju S.R,
S/o Sri Rajashekaraiah,
Aged about 33 years, Sriraganahalli,
Banaswadi Post, Solur Hobli, Magadi
Taluk, Ramanagara District.
(Sri.K.S.Subramanya, Adv.)
Date of Institution of the suit 23.08.2011
Nature of the suit Injunction
Date of commencement of
26.04.2016
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 02.06.2016
pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
04 09 09
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for permanent injunction.
2. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is a registered company under the Companies Act. The plaintiff is manufacturing Biscuits, Confectionary and Printing (Wrappers). The products of the Bangalore Factory are popular amongst the consumers and the products are Parle G, Krackjack, Hide and Seek and Melody.
2(a). The factory employs about 259 permanent workmen and 75 staff members and there are about 12 3 O.S.6116/2011 Probationers and 60 Trainees. Besides this, the factory has also employed Contract Labour after complying with the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The service conditions of the workmen and the staff are governed by the Settlement entered into between the Sole Recognized Union and the Management before the Deputy Labour commissioner and Conciliation Officer.
2(b). The defendants 2 to 6 are the office bearers of the defendant No.1 and all the defendants are employed with the plaintiff. The Settlement had been entered into between the Management of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and the said Settlement expired on 31.05.2011. However, in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, the Settlement continues to bind the parties until replaced by another Settlement. The defendant Union submitted a Charger of Demands Dt.02.03.2011. The plaintiff acknowledged the Charter of Demands and wrote to the defendant on 23.06.2011 pointing out that the Charter of Demands requires review and 4 O.S.6116/2011 reconsideration by the Union as the monetary implication of the Demand are very high. The demand placed by the defendants would amount to 200%, therefore, it was requested to review and reconsider the Charter of Demands on practical lines.
2(c). On 17.08.2011, Mr.Honnappa, the 3rd defendant was placed under suspension for committing misconduct while on duty. On the same day, at about 10.45 a.m. some of the office bearers of the Parle Workers' Union entered the production shops and caused extensive damage to the material under production and also finished products and the Company has sustained substantial loss on account of the vandalism indulged in by the workmen in side the factory.
2(d). On 18.08.2011 onwards the workmen after entering the Factory and after marking the attendance by punching the Photo ID Card, do not attend to their duties and they remain on strike and continued to do so until the close of the shift hours. The workmen working in all the three shifts including night shift, 5 O.S.6116/2011 have resorted to strike after marking their attendance. Despite request to the defendants they continued the strike, the working of the factory has come to stand- still.
2(e). The plaintiff factory has been classified as major accident hazardous Unit by the Directorate of Factories and Boilers in Karnataka and the Unit is certified as hazardous analysis and critical control point by QCFI and SS Certifying authority. So, in the event strike continues and there is total stoppage of work and if the workmen prevent the entry the entry and exit of staff supervisors, officers managers, it will have a serious implication on the maintenance job and thus endanger the safety of the whole plant and the neighborhood. Moreover, continuous of strike and prevention of ingress and egress to the factory, besides affecting the production at the factory will have a serious safety implications.
2(f). Further, since from 17.08.2011 the defendants are on strike and continued to be on strike and it was reliably learnt that the defendants have 6 O.S.6116/2011 decided to intensify their agitation. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file suit for injunction against the defendants
3. On the contrary, the defendants 1 to 6 have filed their written statement and denied the case of the plaintiff. It was specifically contended by the defendants that this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the bar U/s.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also the Trade Union Act, 1926. Further, it was also contended that the defendants workmen have Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(a) to Freedom of speech and expression and under Article 19(1)(b) Right to assemble peaceably and without arms in public place and the rights of the defendant Union members are to be protected while granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case.
3(a). Further, it was contended that on 06.08.2011, the plaintiff had put up a notice on the Notice board withdrawing the existing benefits of the workmen to have a carry bag to carry the biscuits being given to them every month at concessional rate 7 O.S.6116/2011 and required the workmen to pay Rs.1/- for the small bag and Rs.2/- for the big carry bag and the plaintiff have implemented their unilateral decision by compelling the workmen to pay for the carry bags. This action of the plaintiff created unrest amongst the workmen. Moreover, the refusal of the plaintiff to withdraw the suspension order disturbed the normal working in the factory on that day and on subsequent days.
3(b). The defendants had not indulged in destruction of any material under production or finished products on 17.08.2011 as alleged by the plaintiff. They are not on strike or continuing the said strike. The plaintiff by suspending their leader has created situation of disturbance in the factory and workers were peacefully waiting in their work spot for withdrawal of the suspension order.
3(c). The defendants have also filed counter claim by claming the permanent injunction against the plaintiff from not allowing enforcement of their contract of service with the defendants and getting 8 O.S.6116/2011 their work done through staff members and other contract workmen within the suit schedule premises. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the rival pleadings of the both the parties, the following issues have been framed by the court on 28.01.2016:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves the defendants are assembling in front of the factory main gate that is the suit schedule property and causing the damage and inferring the suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
3. What order or decree?
5. The GPA holder of the plaintiff has been examined as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P3 and closed plaintiff's side evidence. No evidence on behalf of the defendants.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order for the
below mentioned
9 O.S.6116/2011
Reasons
8. Issue Nos.1 & 2: Since, these issues being
interconnected and interlinked to each other, to avoid repetition of facts and evidence, I have taken these issues together for common consideration.
9. This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for permanent injunction.
10. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, since the defendants have submitted Charter of Demands on 23.06.2011 and the plaintiff Management had not considering the Charter of Demands and requested the defendants for review and reconsideration because the monetary implication of the demand are very high. Since, the defendants Union did not reviewed and reconsidered the request made by the plaintiff Management and accordingly, the defendants were on strike. Moreover, the 3rd defendant was also placed under suspension for committing misconduct while on duty, on the same day at about 10.45 a.m. some of the office bearers of the workers' Union entered the production shops had caused 10 O.S.6116/2011 extensive damage to the material under production and also finished products and the company has sustained substantial loss on account of the vandalism indulged in by the workmen in side the factory.
11. One N.Suresh was examined as PW.1 and he has reiterated the contents of the plaint averments in his oral testimony and he has produced the certified copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition marked as Ex.P1 and two paper cuttings marked as Ex.P2 and the order copy marked as Ex.P3.
12. Though the defendants have filed their written statement have specifically denied the case of the plaintiff and also contended that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the bar U/s 9(1)(a) of CPC and also Trade Union Act, 1926. So, in order to substantiate their stand, the defendants neither cross examined PW.1 nor entered into the witness box.
13. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the ruling reported in 1992 I LLJ 266 in 11 O.S.6116/2011 Simpson & Group Companies Workers & Staff Union /vs/ Amco Batteries Ltd., and also relied on 2013 LLR 509 in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., /vs/ Karnataka Petroleum and Gas Workers Union and others, and also relied on 1991 LLR 792 in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., /vs/ Bharatia Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Karmachari Sangh & others and also relied on 2008 LLR 637 in Superior Crafts /vs/ Centre of Indian Trade Union & others and also relied on 20120 LLJ 384 in Kerafibertex International Pvt. Ltd., /vs/ Kerafibertex Employees Association and another.
14. Keeping in mind the dictum laid down by their lordships in the supra rulings, wherein their lordships have held that, right to picket is a very intangible one and 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 methods, i.e., use of voice and exhibition of placards and should not be extended to physical obstruction of a vehicle or a person which would be illegal.12 O.S.6116/2011
15. On perusal of the dictum laid down by their lordships in the supra rulings, wherein their lordships have held that suit for injunction against the picketers and demonstration by the employees is very much maintainable.
16. So, in keeping in mind the dictum laid down by their lordships in the supra rulings and also facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that, since the defendants being the workmen and they indulged in strike and moreover, they are not attended the work on 18.08.2011 and production of the factory came to be stand still and despite the request made by the plaintiff, the defendants Union has not even allowed the contract hoppers, cooking vessels, milk solution preparation vessel and batch rollers etc., and because of the strike by the defendants Union, there was a serious dislocation, disruption, delay in attending to maintenance job and apart from that, the Directorate of Factories and other Authorities have classified as major accident hazardous Unit and under such circumstances, the 13 O.S.6116/2011 defendants requires to be restrained from entering into the factory premises. The plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience also lies in his favour and in case injunction is not granted, plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. With this observation, I answer issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
17. Issue No.3.: In view of findings on above issues, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
The defendants or anybody on their behalf are restrained from crowding and assembling in front of the factory main entrance within the radius of 50 meters from the schedule premises and also restrained from causing any damage to the premises and property of the plaintiff and also restrained from demonstrating 14 O.S.6116/2011 or resorting to any form of agitation within the factory premises.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, this the 2nd day of June, 2016) ( V.B.SURYAVANSHI ) XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiff :
PW.1 : Sri.Suresh List of documents marked for the Plaintiff :
Ex.P1 Order copy in Writ petition Ex.P2 Two paper cuttings Ex.P3 Copy of proceedings Dt.03.08.2013
Witnesses examined for the defendants: nil Documents marked for the defendants: nil ( V.B.Suryavanshi ) XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY 15 O.S.6116/2011 Judgment pronounced in the open court ( vide separate order) Order The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The defendants or anybody on their behalf are restrained from crowding and 16 O.S.6116/2011 assembling in front of the factory main entrance within the radius of 50 meters from the schedule premises and also restrained from causing any damage to the premises and property of the plaintiff and also restrained from demonstrating or resorting to any form of agitation within the factory premises.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XX ACC & SJ,B'lore