KAMGAR SABHA Vs. HINDUSTAN CIBA-GEIGY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS in Special Civil Suit No. 10/94/a on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, are the appellants herein. They challenge the order passed by the lower Court on 10th February, 1994 whereby they were restrained from doing certain violent acts alleged to have been committed by them in the plaint and also restrained from demonstrating within a distance of 100 meters of the main gate of the respondent's factory. After filing this appeal by order dated 25th March, 1994 the order under Appeal had been revised to the effect that demonstration had been prohibited within the distance of 30 meters instead of 100 meters.

(2.) IT is alleged in the plaint that the respondent Company is engaged in the manufacture of Pesticides, Pharmaceuticals, Dyes and Chemicals, Additives, etc. , at their factory situated at Corlim, Ilhas, Goa, spread over an area of 200 acres. That for this purpose the employer has engaged about 550 employees out of which 115 persons are in the Managerial Cadre. In addition to the factory building the complex at Corlim comprises of various other buildings housing different departments of the respondent and in addition had residential quarters for its officers within the confines of the same complex. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit are the Trade Unions of the employees of the employer's factory which is registered under the Trade union Act, 1926. The other defendants are the office bearers of the Goa Unit of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It is also alleged that in the month of May, 1993 the appellants herein submitted a charter of demands. The despite constant negotiations to arrive at a fresh settlement to regulate wages and other allowances of the factory workers from 1-1-1993, between the respondent and the appellants, the attempt of a fresh settlement did not yield any result. However, their charter of demands had not been adhered to by the respondent and by November, 1993 the workers of the respondent started resorting to restrictive practices with a view to compel and/or pressurise the respondent to yield to their demands. It is alleged that they were engaged in a series of unlawful activities of sabotage and thereby resulting in stoppage of production activities. The appellants/workers also refused to continue to work on essential service points in absence of relievers. It is also alleged that the appellants workers were also found clandestinely putting up derogatory posters condemning the Management of the respondent. There are certain incidents of violence also alleged against the appellants. In view of these restrictive practices and go-slow adopted by the appellants/workers the respondent had declared a lock-out by a notice with effect from 00. 00 hours on 14-1-1994.

(3.) AS soon as the lock-out was declared the factory workers started threatening the contractors and other contractual labourers engaged by the respondent for doing various other works at the factory site. There were allegations of beating up of the contractors' workers and that about 700 workers engaged by the respondent were not allowed into the factory complex.