NOBLE GAS LTD. Vs. NOBLE GAS WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to quash the order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Jude (Jr. Divn.), Jaipur Road in C.S. No. 62 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court allowed the application filed by the defendant under Sec. 151 C.P.C. and held that the dispute comes under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the "I.D. Act") and as such civil court has no jurisdiction to maintain the civil suit and accordingly dismissed the suit.

(2.) The petitioner as plaintiff instituted C.S. No. 62 of 2007 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jaipur Road for permanent injunction restraining the defendant's union from holding demonstrations, dharanas, blockages, gherao, shouting, slogans, putting up loudspeakers, causing hindrance in the egress and ingress of the materials required for the purpose of production of the industry within a radius of 500 metres of the factory site. The case of the plaintiff is that it is an industry engaged in production of oxygen. The defendant worker's union is a union of the workers of the plaintiff. They are openly expressing to stop production, man -handling the officers and staffs of the company. Virtually they have stopped production of the company. Their sole intention is to extract money from the Manager. The illegal and unauthorized activities of the defendant worker's union are detrimental to the smooth running of the company. The activities of the union are intended to cause permanent loss of the company. They are determined to obstruct normal functioning of industry. Members of the defendant worker's union including it's office bearers are threatening the workers, employee and officers of the plaintiff company. They are threatening to confine the officers of the company. Also they are threatening the customers and transporters. On 12.04.2007, they have forcibly snatched away wage registers of the company for which the workers could not get their wages for the month of March. Regularly they closed the main gate of the unit forcibly and stopped production/transaction of the unit. With this factual scenario, the suit was filed.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is stated that the plaintiff -industry is engaged in production of oxygen for industrial purpose. The factory is running well. The Managing Director is getting huge amount of profit in each year. Large numbers of workers have been appointed for production purpose of the factory. The Managing Director has not given minimum wages to the workers for which the workers demanded 14 points chapter of demands on 31.3.2004. The worker's union also demanded to enhance their house rent, medical benefit, etc. But the Managing Director issued notice to retrench the workers and to lay out the factory for repairing purpose. Instead of giving wages to the employees, the Managing Director intended to retrench the workers and appointed fresh contract labourers with low salary in order to get huge profit. They have neither threatened nor confined Directors nor closed the main gate. They have not snatched away the wage register on 12.4.2007. Since the Managing Director has not given the minimum wages to the workers, on a demand being made by the Union Secretary of the Labour Department, the Manager produced the wage register before the Labour Department. The District Labour Officer on 11.5.2007 has given remark that the Managing Director has contravened Rule 21(6) of Orissa Minimum Wages Rule 1954 whereafter show cause was issued to the Managing Director. It is further stated that the workers have not been involved in dharanas, blockages, gherao, shouting, etc. Further the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case under Sec. 2(f) of the I.D. Act.