SURESH BABURAO SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WORKER violence is a phenomenon that it consistently being resorted to and is often sought to be justified under the umbrella of permissible agitation or collective bargaining this is unfortunately a misguided form of Trade Unionism and will never be tolerated by the Courts. That it is defensible is a complete misnomer for neither the Industrial Disputes Act nor any other law permit such resort to violence, whatever be the provocation or justification. The inevitable fall out of such incidents is loss to life and property the victims invariably being officers whose only fault is that they happen to work for the Company or are invested with the task of maintaining law and order. That each of these acts constitute offences under the Indian Penal Code is something that is always overlooked and the accused, even if subsequently arrested put up spirited defences that they are being unjustifiably framed or victimised even if their actions have resulted in damage or loss worth crotes of rupees and worse still, the victims having been maimed or killed rendering their families helpless. Unfortunately, traditional methods require the conventional process of establishing the guilt of the accused, which is not only time consuming but oftentimes extremely difficult because of obvious limitations. When violence breaks out in an industry, big or small, the witnesses will necessarily be from within the same body of employees, invariably slightly higher or lower, and would, therefore, be characterised as belonging to the management or workers' sectors. Where there is more than one union, bias or rivalry is attributed and the end result of these difficulties is only compounded by the inherent fear or reluctance on the part of the witnesses to depose before a Court because of the consequences. Unfortunately, the situation has led almost to a deadlock in the matter of bringing to book the persons who are responsible for such damage to life and property. The immediate fallout of this situation has been the unfortunate impression that violence of any sort, howsoever serious, will still go unpunished. This is certainly not the intent cf the justice-dispensing system, and in those of the cases where evidence is forthcoming, a genuine effort will have to be made to do real justice. Traditional principles and approaches relating to the assessment and appreciation of evidence cannot be adopted in relation to all classes of cases and the Courts will, therefore, have to necessarily innovate their approach when it comes to the question of dealing with industrial violence. That the offences will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt is certainly the basic requirement and the Court will also have to proceed cautiously having regard to the repercussions that a conviction would entail to the career of the worker concerned. Simultaneously, the Court will have to balance this approach by considering the nature and gravity of the damage to life and property, of the economic loss that is being caused and of the long-term effects of such violence. Where the offences are established, deterrent punishment is a must.

(2.) FIFTY one workers of Bajaj Auto Ltd. , one of the top bracket Companies at Pune, were arrested and charge-sheeted on a host of charge as a sequel to the violent incidents that took place in the factory premises on 16-6-1979 and 17-6-1979. The Accused were members of the Executive committee of the Bajaj Auto Kamgar Sanghatana, which was a recognised union. The three agreements between the management and workers had expired in march, 1979 and the union had put forward a series of demands in relation to the new agreement and negotiations in respect of these demands were in progress. The management had indicated its unwillingness to agree to the demands that the union was insisting on, and the workers had resorted to a one-hour-sit-down strike since the month of June, 1979 onwards. A meeting was scheduled between the union and the management on 16-6-1979, but the President of the Union, Shri Chatterjee (since deceased), telephonically requested for a day's postponement on the ground of his ill health. The management acceded to this request. The workers who were obviously unaware of the real reason for the postponement got agitated and resorted to violence.

(3.) IT is alleged that two of their leaders, Accused Nos. 3 and 29 who were asked to pacify the workers, infuriated them instead, by exhorting the workmen to demonstrate their might to the management. When the situation got out of control, the Police were summoned and a virtual running battle ensued. It appears that some construction work was going on in the factory and the workers work were, therefore, able to have a ready supply of stones which were freely used on the Police, the Company's security staff and the Company's property, namely, the buildings and in particular on the glasspanes. In order to control the workers, after several warnings, the Police fired teargas-shells. In the meanwhile, the workers started using a large number of metal parts, which are referred to in the evidence as metal jobs, as missiles and several of the Police personnel sustained injuries. They also started hurling teargas-shells back at the Police. The Company, being a large one, has its various units spread over an expansive area. In order to prevent the Police from getting close, the workers set fire to various imflammable objects, started pouring acid and put barrels across the road to prevent the Police from following them. They also set fire to wooden cartons and scrap material.