HINDUSTHAN LEVER SRAMIK KARMACHARY CONGRESS Vs. ASHISH CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a hotly contested revisional application. The plaintiff-petitioner has moved this Court against the order, dated 14th March, 1989 passed by the Additional district Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, in Misc. Appeal No. 630 of 1989 affirming the order, dated 21st December, 1988 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Alipore, in T.S. No. 292 of 1988. Both the Courts below concurred in their decisions by not allowing the interim order of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts of the case briefly are as under: The petitioner instituted a suit, inter alia, for declaration that the defendant-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 13 have no right to function as the Executive Committee of the Hindusthan Lever Sramik Karmachary Congress and the Executive Committee of the petitioner-union representing the majority workers is legally constituted and elected Executive Committee having the authority to represent union and also for a declaration that the M/s. Hindusthan Lever Ltd., defendant No. 14, has no right to negotiate or recognise the union represented by the defendants Nos. 1 to 13. According to the petitioner the election of the Executive Committee was held on 27th July, 1987 and it took over the management and affairs of the plaintiff-union and the defendant No. 14 accepted the Executive Committee of the union by its letter dated 14th August, 1987. For some time past the defendant-opposite parties No. 14, i.e., M/s. Hindusthan Lever Ltd. (thereinafter referred to as "the Company") has taken recourse to unfair labour practice detrimental to the interest of the workers and in pursuance to the policy of reducing work for applied to the State Government Labour Department for the retrenchment of 253 workmen of R.I.N. Department but has not as yet got any permission. In January 1988 the Company by notice directed 193 workmen not to attend to work or to enter the factor unless they execute bond for transfer to other department without having deliberation with the petitioner. On 18th July, 1986 the Company entered into an agreement with the plaintiff-Union the schemes for making 160 workmen employed as contract-labour for over 20 years as permanent employee by 1990. To evade the agreement the Company started taking recourse to unfair labour practice. The petitioner filed a suit against the Company and moved an application for temporary injunction restraining the Company derecognising the plaintiff-union. The Trial Court having allowed the interim order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the learned District Judge was pleased to direct the Company to maintain status quo.

(2.) The Company has recognised an Executive Committee formed by opposite-parties Nos. 1 to 13 consisting of a few dissidents and non-members with the connivance of the Company in most unconstitutional manner without any general meeting and without any regard to the constitution and rules of the union. According to the petitioner, the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 13 have no locus standi or right to represent the plaintiff-union in any manner and owe existence by sheer collusion with the Company. These opposite-parties are using the office of the plaintiff-Union.

(3.) In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner had to file an application for temporary injunction praying for restraining the opposite-parties, Nos. 1 to 13 from representing the plaintiff-Union and from obstructing its legally constituted Executive Committee from functioning and also restraining the Company from negotiating any deal with the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 13.