Orchid
Employee’s Union & Ors. Vs. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2008] INSC
502 (25 March 2008)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.9041 of 2007) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J 1. Leave
granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge
of the Madras High Court allowing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the
respondent. By the common order three Civil Revision Petitions were disposed
of. The Civil Revision Petitions were filed against a common order of dismissal
in I.A. Nos.1489 to 1491 of 2006 in OS No. 360 of 2006 dated 13.3.2007 by the
Learned District Munsif Madurantagam filed by the respondent to restrain the
present appellant No.1-Union and its members from assembling within 100 meters
of the boundary of its company and restraining them from obstructing the
ingress and egress of vehicles carrying raw material and finished products,
staff bus and other vehicles into the respondent Company and also obstructing
loyal workers, foreign customers and other visitors from entering into the
premises of the company and getting out of the same till the disposal of the
suit.
3. The High Court held that prima facie there was contravention of Section
22 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (in short the Act). It was
noted that the formation of the appellant No.1-Union was challenged and
cancellation proceedings were pending before Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Chennai. The High Court felt that it would be in the interest of the parties to
pursue their remedy before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai and get
the grievance redressed. It was further observed that if that could not be
done, the matter should be referred to Industrial Tribunal and till then the
status quo should be maintained.
For the reasons stated above, all the Civil Revision Petitions were allowed,
setting aside the orders passed in the respective I.A. Nos. 1489 to 1491 of
2006 in O.S. No. 360 of 2006 dated 13.3.2007 by the learned District Munsif,
Madurantagam.
4. The present appellants and members of 17th respondent Union (before the
High Court) were restrained to assemble within 100 meters of the boundary of
the factory premises of the respondent company and raise slogans or obstruct
the ingress and egress of the vehicles carrying raw materials and finished
products, staff bus and other vehicles into factory premises, and obstruct the
loyal workers, foreign customers and other visitors from entering into the
respondent company and getting out of the same till the disposal of the suit or
the conciliation proceedings, whichever is earlier. It was, however, observed,
that the above interim injunctions will not in any way interfere with the
present appellants rights to strike or with the exercise of any other rights
conferred by the Industrial Disputes Act or the Trade Unions Act. Though the
workers cannot be prevented from gathering or picketing beyond the limit of 100
meters, such assembling and picketing were to be peaceful and lawful and
without in any manner violating the directions given.
5. Though various points were urged in support of the appeal, it was pointed
out on 6.12.2007 an order was issued by the Labour and Employment (A2)
Department inter alia stating as follows:
And whereas the Government are of the opinion that for the purpose of
maintaining employment and industrial peace and to prevent continuing
industrial unrest in the aforesaid establishment which is a public Utility
Service engaged in the manufacture of drugs and pending adjudication of the demands
referred to the Industrial Tribunal, it is necessary to make an order.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following order:
The Management of Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited shall
provide work to all the workers who called off the strike on 26.6.2007 except
those workmen against whom criminal complaints were filed with police by the
management.
6. In view of the aforesaid position, we find that nothing further survives
to be done in the appeal which is accordingly disposed of.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
