HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 is a car manufacturer of repute. It has its factory at Bhadrakali, Police Station-Uttarpara, District-Hooghly. The claim that has been raised in this petition is that the members of some of its employees unions, being respondent Nos. 7 to 9 herein, on and from 11.3.07 have been staging unauthorised "gharao" and indulging in unlawful agitation claiming settlement of certain demands and in the process have been hampering the peaceful industrial environment and the process of production in its factory premises. It is alleged that willing employees are not being allowed to enter and exit the office buildings and production unit; ingress of trucks/ trailers to the factory premises and egress therefrom are being obstructed by the agitating employees belonging to the respondent Nos. 7 to 9; and officials of the petitioner No.l have been manhandled and its properties ransacked. It is further alleged that number of complaints have been lodged with the local police station for assistance which has not been provided compelling the petitioners to approach the Court of the Executive Magistrate by filing petitions under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Although orders have been passed by the Executive Magistrate directing maintenance of peace and tranquillity in the area and also to ensure that the company runs smoothly, no effective action has been taken by the police thereby compelling the petitioners to approach this Court seeking relief.

(2.) Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the guise of Trade Union activities, no employee is authorized to indulge in hooliganism and create impediment either in the process of production of the petitioner No.l or in any manner to endanger the safety and security of other employees. It is his submission that willing employees are being obstructed from attending work and a reign of terror is prevailing in the area in question. The situation, according to him, warranted positive action on the part of the police authorities so as to ensure that law and order is maintained and that the agitating employees are not allowed to take law in their own hands. But the police having remained inactive, he has, accordingly, prayed for orders in terms of the prayers as contained in the petition.

(3.) Mr. Bagchi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 has vehemently opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the petitioners having availed of remedy provided under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ought not to be allowed to proceed with the present writ petition. He has referred to a bench decision of this Court reported in 1995(1) CHN 224 (para 14) : CPA Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Employees' Union & Ors. vs. CPA Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. for the proposition that once the petitioners have availed of an alternative remedy provided by statute, a writ petition on the self-same cause of action would not be maintainable. It is his further submission that when the Magistrate is approached under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate may draw up proceedings provided he is satisfied that circumstances do warrant passing of an order in terms of the same. It would, therefore, involve an element of subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate and having regard to the orders passed, it is clear that the Magistrate concerned was not at all satisfied and, accordingly, did not draw up any proceeding. He urged this Court not to substitute the view of the Magistrate since the Magistrate was well-suited to consider the issue of maintenance of law and order. He has further submitted that the respondent No. 7 is the sole bargaining agent in respect of the industrial establishment of the petitioner No. 1 for two years with effect from 1.4.05 and it has been espousing the cause of its members strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereafter the said Act). He has referred to prayer (e) of the writ petition and has submitted that the petitioners have asked for a relief which if granted, would curtail the rights of the members of the respondent No. 7 as guaranteed by the said Act and in this connection he has referred to section 28E thereof (West Bengal amendment) and has submitted that the prayers cannot be granted at all. However, he has submitted that none of the members of the respondent No. 7 have been obstructing any of the willing employees to attend work and he argues that if the attendance registers maintained by the petitioner No.l are produced, it would be evident that even at the time demonstrations were being carried out by the respondent No. 7, the willing employees had, in fact, attended to their respective work. He has submitted that there being no valid reason for exercising writ powers in the present case, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.