T C M LTD Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Public Ltd. Company having one among its manufacturing units at Kalamassery. The company is manufacturing chemicals including that which is highly explosive. There was an industrial dispute pending adjudication between the management of the petitioner and the workmen represented by the trade unions. As per the judgment of this Court in W. A. 1016/96, the adjudication of the said dispute had been expedited. The Industrial Tribunal with whom the proceedings for adjudication was pending also persuaded the parties to settle the dispute. Accordingly, a memorandum of settlement was drawn up between the parties on 15.11.1996. But three of the pending issues were left open for further discussion and the matter is now pending conciliation before the Deputy Labour Commissioner (LR) Ernakulam.

(2.) There are five unions, namely, respondents 5 to 9 representing workmen under the petitioner. Out of them respondents 8 and 9 are the unions of the contract workers and the respondents No. 5 to 7 are the unions of regular workers of the petitioner. While so, the 6th and 7th respondents issued a strike notice on 14.1.97 to pursue the issues which remained unsettled and raising further disputes, according to the petitioner. As per the strike notice, the strike was to commence on 28.1.1997 but that was postponed and the strike commenced on 3.2.97. It is submitted by the petitioner that "respondent 5 which is a majority Union did not cause to issue a strike notice as is done by respondents 6 and 7". In the meantime, the contract workers unionised under respondent No. 8 also joined that agitation. Their agitation, according to the petitioner turned to be violent and their agitation has disrupted the loading and unloading work in the factory. It is further alleged that "the agitation of the contract workers became violent and the factory work had to be stopped in view of the obstruction caused by them for the removal of the goods etc.". The petitioner approached the Police and the obstruction caused by the contract workers was removed by the 4th respondent. Thus again when there was loading operations, the contract workers caused obstruction and they threatened the lorry drivers with dire consequences. It is also alleged that the strike of the workers represented by respondents No. 6 and 7 "also was not at all peaceful" and thus the strike called by respondents 6 to 7 "created a situation by which it became impossible to run the factory ..........................The situation became worse on 5.2.97 and a tense situation prevailed giving rise to a law and order situation on 5th when the managerial staff were prevented from going outside the factory till late in the night". It is stated that they were rescued by the police. The petitioner alleged that all these are created by handful of workmen represented by respondents 6, 7, 8 when the majority of the workmen represented by respondent 5 and respondent 9 and the staff and non unionised personnel are working and are prepared to work." The willing workers are being threatened by them. It is alleged that though at the first instance the police have intervened and removed the obstruction, "they plead helplessness if the situation continues further." They are also causing obstruction to the canteen supply to deprive the willing workmen of the canteen facilities and thereby to persuade them not to work. It is in the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection for free ingress and egress of their willing workers, staff and managerial personnel and also to remove obstruction to the removal of finished, semi-finished goods and raw materials from the godown inside the factory premises to outside and for free movement of vehicles inside and outside the factory premises.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7. It is submitted that "the strike is on seven issues, two of which are for the implementation of the clauses in the settlement signed on 15.11.1996 and has been resorted to after giving due notice to the petitioner management". It is stated that inspite of the cooperation by the unions to the petitioner management for a peaceful settlement of the pending issues "the petitioner had adopted an attitude of hostility towards the unions representing the majority of the workmen." It is stated that the 5th and 9th respondent do not have the majority of membership of the workers. It is admitted that they have not joined the strike and their members are working in the factory. They further submit that no obstruction is caused to such workers though they are minority. It is also submitted that the management was forced to arrive at a settlement on 15.11.1996 in a long pending dispute arisen on 15.4.1995 because of the intervention of this Court and the Industrial Tribunal. They submit that "the strike is peaceful and except for the peaceful Satyagraha, no violence has been caused to anybody". They are only "requesting the officers not to enter the factory and no force is used against them and the officers are not entering the factory because of any avert action by the workers. Possibly, the officers have also sympathy for the workers' cause." It is further submitted that in a dispute between the labour and the management the State should take neutral attitude and shall interfere only when there is violence. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for police intervention and police protection shall not be rendered by an order of this Court.