MRF LIMITED Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case are as follows: - The petitioner is a General Manager of MRF Limited, Tiuvottiyur, wherein, tyres are manufactured. The factory of the petitioner employs 1080 persons and the fourth respondent is the sole bargaining agent in respect of all the employees. The petitioner and the fourth respondent Union have entered into many settlements with regard to wages and other benefits of workmen. A settlement entered between the petitioner and fourth respondent came to an end on 06.07.2013. Thereafter, the fourth respondent submitted charter of demands seeking revision of wages. However, even before any meaningful negotiation could be held, the petitioner approached the Conciliation machinery and thereafter sought directions from this Court for an early reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. The dispute has been referred to the Industrial Tribunal and has been taken on the file of Industrial Tribunal as I.D.No.8 of 2015. This dispute is pending before the Industrial Tribunal and is next posted for orders in certain interim applications filed by the Management on 05.03.2015. In this scenario, from 27.02.2015, the factory workmen, who are the members of the fourth respondent Union, went on strike inside the factory premises of the petitioner in front of the Administrative Block and Human Resources Block. On 28.02.2015, at about 3 p.m. at the conclusion of the first shift and commencement of the second shift, the workmen of both the shifts resorted to a stay -in -strike and laid siege of the Administrative Block and the Human Resources Block of the factory. They did not allow any of the managers / staff, inside both the blocks, numbering more than 40 persons, to leave the office premises. In fact, they were not even given access to essentials like water and food. The workmen who reported for work in the second shift commencing at 3 p.m also joined the striking workmen. As a result, despite their working hours coming to an end at 4.30 p.m., the 40 managerial persons working in the administrative block of the factory were unlawfully restrained inside the office by the members of the fourth respondent Union. The petitioner made complaint with the third respondent and the second respondent through phone seeking police protection for the managers, who were illegally retained inside the factory. The third respondent called on the factory of the petitioner with a few policemen. However, they were far outnumbered by the striking workmen who were more than 700. The petitioner pleaded with the second and third respondents to provide larger contingent of police force to at least enable the exit of the illegally detained managers. However, no efforts were made by the second and third respondents in this regard.

(2.) THE petitioner further submits that at around 8.30 p.m., a Manager of the Human Resources Department, who was highly diabetic, faced a medical condition resulting in a drastic drop of his blood sugar and blood pressure. The officials of the petitioner requested the members of the fourth respondent Union to either provide some food to the concerned officer or permit him alone to be taken to hospital using the factory's ambulance. However, the members of the fourth respondent prevented the movement of the sick officer who was in need of immediate medical attention. The fourth respondent members after much persuasion agreed to allow him to exit the factory for medical assistance at around 9 p.m. only. Even when he was being taken from the HR block to the ambulance he was attacked by the striking workmen. The ambulance was thereafter very violently attacked. The concerned officer, despite the fact that he was being taken to hospital, was beaten even as he was sitting in the ambulance. The ambulance was severely damaged. The ambulance, which was a small omni van, was shaken and was not allowed to leave the factory. After much persuasion, despite the medical condition of the concerned officer deteriorating, the ambulance was allowed to leave the factory only around 09.05 p.m. A part of the incident has been captured in the CCTV camera fitted near the gate of the factory. Unfortunately as the workmen have been resisting installation of CCTV camera in other parts of the factory, there is no footage of the entire incident. The available CCTV footage would show the conduct of the members of the fourth respondent.

(3.) THE petitioner has reliably come to know that if the orders to be passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 05.03.2015, in interlocutory applications filed by the management were not to their liking, the members of the fourth respondent would resort to another stay in strike putting in peril the men and material of the petitioner factory. The petitioner apprehends that the workmen may once again lay siege of the HR Block and administrative block and resort to a stay -in -strike. In the past, the petitioner faced similar action outside the factory gate by the members of the fourth respondent. It filed O.S.No.94 of 20007 before the Subordinate Judge, Ponneri and had obtained permanent injunction restraining the fourth respondent, its office bearers, members, servants or anybody on its behalf from preventing the ingress and egress of officers, loyal workers, contract workers, vehicles, movement of finished products and raw materials, to assemble, demonstrate, shout slogans and conduct dharna within a radius of 10 meters from the factory premises of the petitioner. Despite the said order, the members of the fourth respondent resorted to stay -in -strike on 28.02.2015 and are likely to resort to the same on 05.03.2015 or thereafter. Despite the action of the members of the fourth respondent being in violation to the permanent injunction granted against them, the respondents 1 to 3 have not come forward to provide protection. The respondents refuse to interfere stating it is a labour dispute.