ITC EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION under S. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for the direction to the respondents to restrain the first and second respondents from giving any police protection to the third respondent -Management either in removal of goods, whether finished or semi finished machineries and raw -materials from its factory at Thiruvottriyur or to interfere with the peaceful demonstration by the third respondent's workers at or near the said factory in exercise of the trade Union rights.

(2.) THE General Secretary of the petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of the application. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: -

(3.) MS . Vaigai, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Row and Reddy has submitted that the long term agreement entered into between the Union and the Management came to an end on 30.11.92, but even prior to the expiry date, the Union has got the charter of demands on 7.10.92 that the Management gave the counter proposals on 8.12.92 whereby they sought introduction of a modernisation scheme which would result in retrenchment of the existing workers and it was not acceptable to the Union, since the work -load would be high. Since the Management was unreasonable, strike notice was sent on 20.5.93 and in the meanwhile, the Joint Commissioner of Labour initiated conciliation talks and so strike was deferred. The learned counsel would further submit that on 6.9.93 the Management insisted running of certain new machines, according to meaning norms set out by it, that the workers refused to operate on it and on 7.9.93 six workers were dismissed and 30 were suspended. She would further submit that this order is an illegal one and so it was decided to place those matters before the conciliation proceedings and in view of the provocation by way of dismissal and suspension, the workers went on strike. The learned counsel would submit that the management insisted a written undertaking being given by the workers before entering into the factory premises and they are not entitled to insist on such a condition and the Management has closed the doors and this would amount to an illegal lock -out. She would further submit that the workers have got a charge over the finished and semi -finished goods in the factory premises and as such they have got every right to obstruct the removal of the said goods from the factory premises and if they are allowed to be removed, the efficacy of the strike will be affected.