AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These applications are filed by the applicant / plaintiff to grant an order of Interim Injunction restraining the respondents and their men from
pasting, sticking or in any manner exhibiting any banner, playcards or posters or wall writing or such other material anywhere in the applicant''s
office at No.2, Haddows Road, Chennai-6, to grant interim injunction restraining them from preventing ingress and egress of the officers and others
and vehicular movements from and out of the applicant''s office premises and also interim injunction restraining them from holding any
demonstration, shouting slogans, gathering in number on dharnas and going on fast into death or relay fast inside and in front of the office premises
of the applicant pending disposal of the suit.
The case in brief for disposal of all the applications is as follows:
The applicant is a statutory Corporation established under Food Corporation of India Act, 1964 to procure, store and distribute foodgrains. They
are having offices throughout India and the applicant is controlling the activities of the offices in the Southern States and the Union Territories of
Pondicherry and Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The applicant is a wholly subsidised Corporation of the Government of India and it is established
to serve the poor and downtrodden by supplying necessary foodgrains through the Public Distribution System. The applicant for administrative
reasons transferred 38 employees and suspended one employee in November, 1999. Out of 38 employees transferred, 21 employees accepted
the transfer and joined duty, respondents 2 to 19 did not accept the transfer order and started agitating through the first respondent. They were
insisting on the cancellation of the order. Since the applicant has acted bona fide and the transfers were effected for administrative reasons, they
refused to cancel the order. The respondents started conducting meetings in the premises of the applicant without obtaining permission and were
holding meeting inside the compound in front of the main entrance of the applicant''s office. Many outsiders were also participating in the said
meetings.
The respondents resorted to violent activities and prevented the employees from entering and leaving the premises of the applicant through the
main gate. They also prevented the people who have business transaction with the applicant from entering and leaving the premises. They also
prevented the vehicular movement inside the compound. The respondents from 1.5.2000 have intensified their activities. They held a meeting on
8,5.2000 in front the main entrance inside the compound. They have erected shamianas and used sound amplifier. They used abusive language and
Instigated the members to take violent action against the officers and staff. They have defaced the walls both inside and outside. They have pasted
posters, tied banners and written on the walls in red paint. They also started fast unto death. The applicant gave a complaint to the police
authorities and they took into custody respondents 2 and 3 who were on fast unto death. For this, respondents 21 and 22 started fast unto death.
They were squatting in front of the main entrance. The applicant was forced to close the main gate and the main entrance. The employees of the
applicant used the side entrance only. The respondents instead of resorting to legal means provided under law, resorted to wholly unjustified and
Intimadatory agitation which could result in violence to person and property. They have no right under law to deface the premises of the applicant
by pasting and displaying posters, playcards and banners all over the place within the office premises. The demonstrations and meeting and
shouting of slogans lead to an adverse Impact leaving the reputation of the applicant bad in the eyes of the public. The sufferers are the farmers and
consumer public especially below the poverty level. The current activities and agitation of the respondents against the public interest and public
good. Unless they are restrained from these activities, the applicant will not be in a position to render service to the public and they have got a
prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favour.
The respondent filed a counter affidavit and denied the various averments. The first respondent Association is a registered Body and registered
under the Societies Registration Act. There are about i500 members in the Association, who belong to SC or ST community. This association has
been formed with a view to protect the interest of its members who belong to SC and ST community, and who are working in the applicant
corporation. There had been a large scale oppression of the members of this association by some of the officers of the applicant corporation.
Recently, the Zonal Manager passed a series of illegal orders, transferring the members of the association in contravention to the transfer policy
and also took vindictive action against the office bearers of the association, substantial number of persons covered by the said illegal orders were
comprised of the respondent association. Representations were made by the respondent association to the Zonal Manager and he started issuing a
series of illegal transfer orders to far off places in violation of the transfer policy. Some of the office bearers were also suspended. Some of the
members of the association have protested against such illegal orders in a lawful manner. The Zonal Manager also issued various public notices and
threatened to terminate the services of the members. The association has been making repeated representations besides conducting peaceful
demonstrations as permissible in law apart from conducting relay fast. They also submitted a memorandum to the National Commission for SC and
ST which is a constitutional body besides representations to the Minister for Food, Union of India and others. The Commission had enquired into
the matter and addressed a letter to the applicant corporation holding that the action of the applicant is illegal and requested them to withdraw the
same. Notwithstanding the report of the Commission, the applicant have been pursuing their vindictive action.
These applications have been filed with a view to suppress the respondents from vindicating their lawful rights. Since the transfer orders were
contrary to the transfer policy and vindictive, they approached the first respondent association and started making representations to withdraw the
same. They have not resorted to violent activities for preventing employees from entering and leaving the premises. They also did not prevent the
vehicular movement. These allegations have been made only to prejudice the minds of the court. Since the corporation did not heed to anyone of
the representations and did not even consider the report of the Commission, they were constrained to conduct indefinite fast. It is not correct to
state that the outsiders have participated in the meeting. The respondents have only tied banners and kept posters which however have been,
removed. They have issued several notices to the applicant before conducting peaceful and lawful demonstrations. They never conducted any
meeting or any demonstration during office hours. In fact all such meetings are peaceful demonstrations by means of slogan shouting during the
lunch hours done by several other unions and associations. These actions cannot be characterised as illegal or unjustified. The applicant
corporation''s aim is to harass the respondent association. Hence, these applications are liable to be dismissed.
The applicant filed reply affidavit denying the averments in the counter statement. The allegation that there has been large scale oppression of the
members of the respondent association by some of the officers of the applicant is baseless and denied. In 1999 two new Districts were formed in
Karnataka Region of the corporation. Employees were required to work In these newly formed districts. Therefore, 87 employees from Tamil
Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala Regions were transferred to Karnataka Region. Out of 87 employees, only 27 belong to SC/ST Community,
that too from all the three regions. All the 87 transfers were done in accordance with the rules and regulations of the corporation. There is no
illegality or irregularity, in fact, 19 similarly placed employees of Andhra Pradesh Region challenged their transfer orders in the high Court of
Andhra Pradesh and the writ petitions were dismissed. The Illegal agitation was not conducted in a democratic manner or peacefully. They used
abusive and filthy language inside the office premises and resorted to riotous behaviour. They also sent notice on 5.5.2000 to the effect that they
would intensify their agitation and resort to direct action from 8.5.2000. They also gathered in front of the zonal office of the corporation from the
morning onwards and shouted slogans continuously using filthy language. They used public Address System and threatened the employees and
officials. Respondents 2 to 23 did not go and join at the places to which they were transferred. They were also assembling in front of the Zonal
Office of the corporation and squatting. The first respondent and other respondents did not give any notice as contemplated u/s 22 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, The applicant is a Public Utility Service as defined u/s 2(n) of Industrial Disputes Act. Some of the respondents also undertook fast
unto death amongst the other respondents who were present in the venue. They did not attend to their duties and the corporation lost heavily. The
decision of the National Commission for SC / ST is tilted and their directions are only advisory and not mandatory. The speakers also instigated
them to take law into their hands. All the misconduct were reported in Newspapers with photographs, Many Central Government Officers are
housed in Shastri Bhavan situated just opposite to the Corporation. They were also affected by the illegal strike and activities of the respondents.
They also gave a complaint to the police authorities. The applicant had filed necessary documents to show the violent and undemocratic nature of
the activities of the respondents and others. Only after the interim orders of this Court, the employees of the corporation are able to perform their
duties peacefully. There is no reason to vacate the order.
Heard the learned counsel of both sides.
The points that arise for consideration are
(1) Whether the applicant Corporation has got prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favour ?
(2) Whether the respondents have exceeded their rights provided under the Industrial Disputes Act ?
(3) To what relief ?
Points: The Food Corporation of India, and Statutory Corporation established under Food Corporation of India Act, 1964 represented by the
Deputy Zonal Manager, filed these applications, claiming interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men from holding any
demonstration or shouting slogans or dharnas or going on fast unto death or relay fast inside and in front of the office premises of the applicant
situate at No.2, Haddows Road, Chennai, interim injunction restraining them from pasting or sticking or in any manner exhibiting any banners,
playcards or posters or wall writing or such other materials anywhere within the premises and also interim injunction restraining them from
preventing ingress and egress of the officers of the employees and vehicular movements pending disposal of the suit. It is seen from the affidavit that
about 38 employees had been transferred to other State and one employee had been placed under suspension. About 21 employees in obedience
to the orders have also joined in their respective stations. The respondent association insisted that the orders of transfer have to be cancelled and
as they have not been cancelled, they conducted meetings in the premises without obtaining permission and also resorted to violent activities. Apart
from that, they also prevented the employees from entering and leaving the premises through the main gate and further prevented the movement of
vehicles.
On 1.5.1990 they have intensified their agitation and they held a meeting on 8.5.2000 in front of the main entrance inside the compound of the
office and many outsiders were also allowed to participate and Public Address System was also used. According to the applicant, these persons
used abusive language and instigated the members to take violent action. They have defaced the walls of the premises both inside and outside,
pasted posters, tied banners and written on the walls in red paint. Some of the members have also started fast unto death and some of them were
squatting in front of the main entrance and preventing ingress and egress of the other members. Instead of resorting to legal means, they resorted to
wholly unjustified and intimidatory agitation, which could result in violence to person and property.
Per contra, the respondents denied the incidents and contended that only to prevent their lawful demonstration and picketing, these
applications are filed by the applicant. They further stated that the office bearers of the association and some other persons have been transferred
in violation of the transfer policy. They gave number of representations to the management and to the National Commission for SC/ST and in spite
of their advice, the orders of transfer have not been cancelled, only to focus the attention of the management, they resorted to demonstration
peacefully and they never indulged in any violent activity. They also denied that they caused any damage or created any panic situation in the said
place.
Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicants are not entitled to claim any blanket order of injunction and if an order is
granted, virtually it would be interfering into the rights granted to them under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is therefore necessary to find out
whether the applicant has got prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favour.
It is clear from the affidavit as well as reply affidavit filed by the applicant that in 1999, two new districts were formed in Karnataka Region of
the Corporation and employees were required. Under the circumstance 87 employees from Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala were
transferred to the Karnataka Region, out of the 87 employees, only 27 belong to SC/ST community and all the 87 transfer orders were done in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the corporation. In short, it is stated that there is no illegality or irregularity in any of these transfer
orders. They also further pointed out that similarly placed 19 persons of Andhra Pradesh Region moved at High Court of Andhra Pradesh relating
to transfer and their writ petitions were dismissed. The Association also sent a notice on 5.5.2000 to the effect that they would intensify their
agitation and to resort direct action from 8.5.2000. This communication has not been disputed by the respondents. It is also categorically stated by
the applicant that the members of the respondent association gathered in front of the Zonal Office from morning, shouted slogans using abusive
language and they also brought outsiders and unauthorisedly erected shamiyanas in front of the entrance, defaced the walls both inside and outside
the office premises and prevented other employees from entering and leaving the place and infact, loyal workers were prevented from doing the
work. It is necessary to state that these respondents have not given any notice as contemplated u/s 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Prima facie it
is clear that the action of the respondents cannot be said to be one which can be protected by a court of law. The applicant is a Public Utility
Service as defined u/s 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not seriously disputed. Under the circumstance, it is manifestly clear that the applicant
corporation is a Public Utility Establishment and even assuming that if some transfers have been effected, it is not the way to approach the same to
redress their grievances. It is therefore clear from the affidavit and the contentions raised by the applicant that the Association has taken law into
their own hands and prevented the loyal employees from ingress and egress and the vehicular movement was also stopped. By any stretch of
imagination it cannot be said that the demonstration is peaceful and the court cannot interfere in their right. The applicant has also filed typed set of
documents with paper cutting to show the alleged peaceful demonstration done by these members.
Learned counsel for the respondents contended that me applicant is not entitled to a blanket order of injunction because the association has got
every right to peaceful agitation or demonstration or gate meeting, etc. and if any blanket order is given, it would virtually curtail the right granted to
them under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Even assuming that the Association has got the right to ventilate their grievances, it should be
only under lawful means and in a peaceful manner and not shouting slogans using abusive words inside the premises and preventing the loyal
workers and also vehicular movement. They have no right whatsoever, to write in red letters inside and outside the compound and put shamiyana
inside the campus without the permission of the management. Whatever grievances may be, they can establish their solidarity for the grievances far
away from the place of work, as otherwise, reputation of the institution and the service of the customers will be definitely affected. The action of
the respondent association is not one which can be appreciated. No doubt, in the counter, now it is stated that their demonstration was peaceful;
but the very fact that they have sent a letter threatening to take direct action is sufficient to come to the conclusion about the action of the
respondent association. Even assuming that the National Commissioner for SC/ST is a statutory body, they cannot interfere and compel the
management to do a particular thing or not. It is only an advisory and if the management has not adhered to the recommendations or if there is any
flout of the service rules, it is always open to the association to agitate the same in the proper forum provided under the Industrial Dispute Act.
They have no right whatsoever to take direct action against the management and that too, inside the working place during office hours. There is
absolutely no reason for the management to come forward with this type of suit along with the applications unless situation has deteriorated and it
has gone out of control. Now, only for the purpose of this case, the respondents would state that everything was peaceful and only to curb the
rights of the workers, the management has come forward with the suit. If really anyone of the transfer is vindictive and against the rules, nothing
prevented the respondents form pointing out even now. But unfortunately, not even a single in stance has been pointed out by the respondents for
reasons best known to them. It therefore follows that the respondents in the name of the association want to dictate the management and they think
that the management should do what the association say and in short, the association wants to be the supreme than the management.
Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision of this court reported in Enfield India Ltd. Etc. v. Enfield Employees Union Etc., 1994
(2) L.W. 476 that in a suit filed by the management for injunction restraining the respondents/Union members from obstructing or preventing
ingress or egress of officers, movement of finished goods, raw materials and from assembling, carrying on demonstrations within 100 metres of the
premises of the factory. It was held, injunction ought to be granted and the suit is not barred by any provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. This
decision is applicable to the case on hand.
Reliance is also placed upon another decision reported in Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak, 1994 (II) LLJ 836 that Strike in public utility
concern by workmen without resolving the dispute as per the machinery provided under the Act or under the contract of employment, rules and
regulations is prima facie unjustified. While the legality of the strike is based on examining whether there is breach of provisions of I.D. Act, the
question of justifiability of strike has to be examined by taking into consideration, facts such as service conditions nature of demands, cause which
led to the strike, urgency of the cause or the demands or the workmen, reason for not resorting to the dispute-resolving machinery under the Act,
etc. This decision is also applicable to the case on hand.
Learned counsel for the respondents relied on All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees'' Welfare Association and Others Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Others, relating to the power of the National Commission of SC and ST. It was held that the Commission having not
been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type. There is no dispute about this
principle.
Learned counsel for the applicant also relied on Audco India Ltd. Vs. The Audco India Employees'' Union and Others, . wherein it was held
that while the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business is a fundamental right recognised by Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India,
right to strike work is not a fundamental right at all. Yet. strike has been recognised as a legitimate weapon in the armoury of labour by courts of
law, and it is circumscribed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Right to strike, can be exercised only after compliance with the
requirements prescribed in the Act. Right to commence strike and continue, the same is regulated and controlled by the provisions of the Act. Any
strike in contravention of the provisions of the Act is illegal, such illegal strike attracts penalty provided in section 26 of the Act.
It is therefore clear from the aforesaid decisions that although the association have got right to peacefully demonstrate yet, it is controlled by
various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. When the association fails to comply such such provisions and resort to strike, it will be construed
as an illegal strike under law and I am of the view that the association cannot justify the same even if the grounds are legitimate. The course
adopted by the association is illegal and improper in the eye of law. As adverted to, the association is not in a position to point out that anyone of
the transfer orders has been made by the management in a vindicative manner. On the otherhand, the applicant has positively established that the
association have exceeded their limit and they have done several acts causing stagnation of work and preventing the loyal workers also from
performing their duties. They have defaced the walls and they have used Public Address System and invited the outsiders to address in abusive
language and also threatened the officials and staff working in the Corporation. If such acts are not prevented at the appropriate time, then naturally
it will create a law and order problem and it is the duty of the court to intervene and in the interest of justice, suitable orders can be passed, it is
also made clear in the reply affidavit that opposite to the Food Corporation of India, Central Government offices are located and as a result of the
acts of these respondents, their work was also affected and for which, they have given complaints with the police authorities. This has not been
disputed by the respondents. Moreover, some of the employees have been transferred on administrative grounds and they have no right
whatsoever to join hands with the association and come to the work place and demonstrate inside the premises and prevent the loyal workers from
doing their work. Taking into consideration of, the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant corporation have got a prima
facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favour. Hence, these points are answered accordingly.
For the reasons stated above, the respondents and their men are restrained from holding any demonstration, shouting slogans, exhibiting
banners, playcards, posters, distance of 100 metres from the office of the applicant corporation. The demonstration or agitation, if any, can be
done only 100 metres away from the place of work and they are restrained from doing any such demonstration or dharna inside the office
premises. They are also restrained from preventing ingress and egress of the staff and officers of the Corporation and also the vehicular movements
in the premises. The applications are ordered accordingly.