AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The film relates to shooting of two feature films.namely, Tui Sudhu Amar and Chalbaaz.
A producer of films.The plaintiff is The plaintiff alleges that the defendant no.1 has blacklisted the plaintiff and members of the defendant nos.4 and 5 in acting and/or being associated with the said films.It is alleged that the defendant no.1 is preventing the members of the defendant nos.4, 5 and other guild members who are associated with the film industry in Bengal from being producer in relation to the said two films.engaged by the The plaintiff has referred to the past conduct of the defendant no.1 to show that for reasons which were beyond the control of the plaintiff the defendant no.1 has arbitrarily interfered with the production of the said films and as a consequence whereof the plaintiff had suffered enormous business loss.
The present dispute arose by reason of a notice issued by the defendant no.1 on 2nd August, 2017 by which the members of all guild/association/union under the defendant no.1 was informed that a unanimous decision was taken in the executive committee meeting of the federation against the plaintiff as the plaintiff alleged to have violated the rules of the defendant no.1 and are acting against the interest of the plaintiff. that different films are being shot by the The notice says plaintiff without engaging the artists and technicians in conformity with the IMPA Federation Agreement.
Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, learned Senior Counsel representing the plaintiff, technicians affiliated submits being to the that members of defendant by reason various no.1 are of such guilds and scared to notice the associations work for the plaintiff and by reason of such notice the Federation has procured a breach of contract between the plaintiff and such individual technicians/workers/actors.It is submitted that the said notice is in violation of the Clause 11 of the Code of Conduct, which became effective from 1st May, 2012.
It is submitted that notwithstanding that the effective date of the said contract had expired but the producers were forced to follow the said agreement in the fear of being blacklisted by the Federation.
Mr.Bachawat has referred to few correspondences and newspaper reports to show that there is disagreement amongst the members of the film fraternity with regard to the enforceability of the said Code of Conduct inasmuch as some actors and/or members of the Federation had expressed dissention functioning of the defendant no.1. after all shooting arrangements of the films have at been London in the manner of Mr.Bachawat submits that made by scheduled the to plaintiff start on for 3rd September, 2017, the members and/or technicians of the defendant no.1 who are engaged by the plaintiff for such said two films are scared and apprehend that in the event such members join the crew in London, their membership may be suspended.
Mr.Bachawat has referred to one instance in which one Mr.Dibyendu Mukherjee was suspended by the guild for not following the instruction of the guild. meeting The petitioner has categorically stated that there was no of the JCC and the same would be evident from the statement made by Krishna Kumar Daga in a communication dated 27th June, 2017 and at press meet on 13th July, 2017.
It is submitted that even if it is assumed that the Code of Conduct applies in the instant case the procedure not being properly followed the defendant no.1 could not have debarred its members from causing a breach to the existing agreement that the plaintiff has or had with such members.Mr.Jishnu Saha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1 apart from questioning the delay in moving this application has submitted that the plaintiff is free to engage the services of other technicians or workers of the plaintiff.
It is submitted that the plaintiff, in fact, had done so as averred in paragraph 43 of the petition and the allegation that the defendant no.1 is procuring a breach of contract or that the defendant no.1 is interfering with the shooting of the films is baseless. result of associated It is submitted that the Code of Conduct was a series with of the meetings film held industry by in all the Eastern stake India holders and is a product of bipartite settlement within the meaning of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Mr.Saha submits that the notice dated 2nd August, 2017 has to be read in conjunction with the correspondences between the parties preceding the said notice inasmuch as the said notice cannot be termed as blacklisting of the plaintiff.
It is submitted that the right of the plaintiff to choose its own technicians was never interfered with and the plaintiff always had the option and freedom to choose its own technicians the only anxiety being that all the members of the defendant no.1 should be given an opportunity to work and a rotational system is maintained so that there may not be any dissention amongst the members.Mr.Saha requests this Court to read the few letters of the defendant no.1 where the defendant no.1 has asserted its absolute right to appoint the technicians and/or workers in the aforesaid light.
There cannot be any doubt that the plaintiff has entered into an agreement with various technicians and artists who belonged to various guilds and are about to shoot Chalbazz in London from 3rd September, 2017. Prima facie, there appears to be some disagreement between the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.5 with regard to the decision being taken by the defendant no.1 requesting its members not to work with the plaintiff.
The plaintiff submits that notwithstanding such decision some of the technicians and actors have agreed to work under the banner. It appears that the defendant no.4 has issued a circular by which it had requested its members not to work with the plaintiff till further notice.
There cannot be any doubt that by reason of such notices the shooting of film is likely to suffer and the plaintiff had already made huge investments in this regard. The plaintiff, however, is unable to inform this Court whether 19 technicians belonging to the defendant no.1 has been engaged by the plaintiff.
The defendant no.1 possibly cannot have any objection if the technicians of the defendant no.1 are engaged for the purpose of shooting the Federation. films.as it would enure to the benefit of the The justification for employing or not employing the members of the defendant nos.1, 4 and 5 or the stand taken and/or likely to be taken by the defendants against its members for working with the plaintiff notwithstanding the impugned notices are required to be assessed on affidavits.
It cannot be doubted that the guild members are bound by the rules and regulations and they cannot act in derogation of the rules and regulations unless it is shown that the acts of the said defendants are demonstrably prejudicial and not in interest of the members.Similarly, the defendants are required to act for the benefit of its members and to ensure that the welfare of the technicians and all other members associated with the film industry are not affected by its decision.
In defendant view no.1 and of the the apparent defendant disagreement no.5 with between regard to the the requirement of engagement of 19 technicians inasmuch as there was no requirement under the rules that a producer cannot have back to back arrangement with the technicians and cannot be penalised for the same, in my view, in the event the members engaged by the producer is not allowed for the shooting of the film abroad it would cause irreparable prejudice to the producer.
The relevant rules relied upon by both the parties shows that for film to be shot at foreign countries the minimum number of technicians could be about nine in numbers and in case of shooting of an scene in foreign countries for feature films.the requisition technicians for workers will depend on case to case basis. of The Chairperson of the defendant no.5 appears to be of the opinion that the move by the Federation to stall the shooting is illegal inasmuch as there was no unanimous decision in the JCC to suspend the shooting of the said film.
In the aforesaid conspectus and having regard to the fact that all the defendants are required to act for the benefit and welfare of its members and would not take such steps it would cause disruption and resulting procuring a breach of contract. members In my view, any coercive measures against the participating in such films are going to effect reputation of the film industry as a whole in Bengal. the However, this view is, prima facie, and based on the materials available on record.
On such considerations the defendants are restrained from preventing the members of the said association from participating in the shooting at London. In the event, any coercive action is taken against the said members.the said defendants shall not give effect to any such decision against such members without the leave of this Court.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 31st October, 2017; reply thereto, if any, shall be filed by 10th November, 2017. Let the matter appear in the list as Adjourned Motion on 13th November, 2017.