AUDCO INDIA LTD Vs. AUDCO INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/applicant is a registered company engaged in the manufacture of industrial pipeline valves and oilfield equipment and the manufactured equipments are mostly supplied to public sector undertakings like Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Nuclear Power Corporation, Thermal Power Plants, Fertilisers and Petrochemical Complexes, Steel Plants Oil Industries, Refineries, Heavy Water Projects, Hydro Electric Power Stations and other Government projects of national importance. The company is also making supplies to foreign countries earning foreign exchange. The current annual turn over is stated to be 25 crores of rupees. The manufacture of valves has been declared to be a public utility service for the purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Government of Tamil Nadu till 27th June 1989. A settlement between the management of the company and the workers expired on 31st March 1988 and the union of employees placed a character of demands on 16th June 1988. As the could be no agreement by mutual discussions, the plaintiff initiated conciliation proceeding by addressing the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour on 2nd December 1988. The latter sent notices dated 12the December 1988 and 19th December 1988 to both parties go appear before him for conciliation. In the second notice, which is filed as Document No. 3 along with the plaint, he advised the union not to indulge in any direct action in view of the conciliation proceeding. On 21st December 1988, the employees went on sudden strike without any notice to the plaintiff. Since then the unionised employees stated to be numbering about 550 are on strike. The above facts are not in dispute.

(2.) IN the last week of December, the plaintiff filed in this Court W. P. No. 16129 of 1988 praying for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Superintendent of Police, Chingleput (East) who was the first respondent therein to take appropriate action and afford necessary and adequate protection to the company in the exercise of its lawful and proprietary rights for the removal of their finished goods from the factory and ensure the non-commission of any offence by any outsider or stranger or the workmen individually of jointly under the direction of the Employees Union which was the second respondent therein. There was an application for interim direction in W. M. P. No. 24106 of 1988 for protection to enable the removal of finished goods as listed in the annexure to the affidavit therein. The annexure contained the description, quantity and the value of the finished goods which were ready for removal from the factory premises. The main allegation was that the workmen were preventing the dispatch of the finished goods to the respective customers. After hearing both sides, Venkataswami, J. passed an order on 10th January 1989 directing the first respondent therein to give the necessary protection to the applicant in the removal of the finished goods set out in the annexure to the affidavit filed therein subject to the condition that the removal of the goods should be after giving notice to the General Secretary of the Employees Union and in his presence or in the presence of his nominee. A further condition was imposed that the value of the goods as and when removed should be deposited in a separate account in the bank in which the petitioner was already having an account to the credit of the writ petition within two days after such removal and that the amount so deposited shall not be dealt with by the petitioner without obtaining orders of this Court. It is stated that the plaintiff got the order modified later enabling deposit of the amount after realisation of the price of the goods from the customers. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff got an order in the same writ petition granting permission for sending certain materials for display at Indian Engineering Trade Fair at Delhi.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the present suit has been field for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, the members of the first defendant union, their associates, agents and men (1) from in any way preventing or obstructing casual, temporary and contract workers, apprentices, loyal workmen and staff, candidates for employment, customers, suppliers, inspectors and other visitors who will have ingress to and egress out of he factory premises on business, (ii) from in any awy preventing or obstructing movement of vehicles, materials, viz. , raw materials bought out or imported or finished or semi-finished goods also to and from its sub-contractors for processing and (iii) from gathering and picketing within a radius of 100 yards from the entrance to the premises of the plaintiff's factory. It is alleged in the plaint that even after the order in the Writ Miscellaneous Petition referred to already, there is no abatement of the obstruction and contempt proceedings are pending against the defendants. It is further alleged that the defendants have errected pandal and shed at the entrance of the factory premises where they gather in large numbers all the time, park therein vehicles and are intimidating, threatening, harassing and preventing all incoming and outgoing personnel blocking the vehicles and indulging in violence. Reference is made to a letter dated 12the January 1989 (produced as Document No. 17 along with the plaint) purporting to have been written by the Manager, Ryder Cheshire Gabriel Rehabilitation Centre, to the plaintiff that the office bearers of the Employees Union and other workers numbering about 50 approached him on 11th January 1989 and advised him not to send the handicapped boys who are the inmates of the Centre to the company for doing work and that he feared violence if he ignored the advice. It is stated in the plaint that by the obstructive tactics adopted by the defendants, the plaintiff has not been able to render essential service by supply of goods to public sector undertakings of national importance. Along with the plaint 24 documents have been filed to support the case of the plaintiff. This application has been filed by the plaintiff praying for an interim order of injunction granting the same reliefs pending disposal of the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, most of the allegations made in the plaint are repeated.