BOKARO STEEL PLANT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Bokaro Steel Plant, a Unit of Steel Authority of India Limited is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Steel Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the SAIL) is also a Government Company incorporated with the main object of manufacturing, prospecting, buying, selling, importing, exporting, or otherwise dealing in iron and steel of all qualities, types and kinds and in any other steel and iron related products. The Bokaro Steel Plant is claimed to be a pioneer steel Plant of the country and one of the largest of its kind, having a total production capacity of 2 million tonnes per year. The steel Plant is covered by a network of gas pipelines, water network and steam pipelines. It is claimed that the whole system of network of pipelines is integrated and a very high standard of safety is required to maintain the minimum level of pressure in the pipelines. The pressure in the pipeline is directly proportional to the production level in the Plant and the entire steel Plant is maintained at the functional level, so that there is not even an hour of shut down in the plant. It is claimed that the Bokaro Steel Plant has never been shut down from its very inception. The Plant is of such a nature that if it is compelled to shut down, it may pose environmental hazards and there is an apprehension even of human catastrophe. The Plant itself may be very seriously affected if it is shut down without following the procedures and it requires at least seven days preparation. Even that would be at the risk of 4,000 tonnes of molten steal in the blast furnaces solidifying and the blast furnaces being destroyed for ever, leading to the necessity of erecting another at the cost of more than rupees ten thousand crores, practically compelling the setting up of a new plant. The gas pipeline network may be damaged leading to escape of lethal gas, carbon monoxide, which, if it escapes, might lead to a tragedy, loss of human lives like the one in Bhopal. The same would be the position by the damage being caused to the steam pipelines leading to another catastrophe that may result in loss of lives.

(2.) THE iron and steel industry has been recognized to be the backbone of the country. It has been notified as a public utility service within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also included in the First Schedule to that Act, containing the industries which may be declared to be the public utility services in terms of Clause (vi) of Clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act. Item 7 of the Schedule is 'Iron and Steel'. Section 22 of the Act places restriction on those who are employed in a public utility service, from resorting to strike without complying with the conditions prescribed therein. The last of the notifications issued under Section 2(n)(vi) of the Act was by the State of Jharkhand on 16.9.2003.

(3.) ON behalf of the writ petitioner, Sri Deepankar Gupta, Senior Advocate, submitted that the proposed strike was clearly illegal, since it was barred by Section 22 of the Act in view of the fact that the industry was a public utility service and during the pendency of a conciliation proceeding before the conciliation officer, no person employed therein, has a right to go on strike. Counsel also contended that the strike was uncalled for, since the forum available to the union was NJCS, which could deal with all the problems, including the alleged failure of the Management to implement some of the decisions already taken and in that situation, the Unions, if they had grievances, could have approached NJCS for resolution. He further contended that the Unions had no fundamental right to strike. They neither had a statutory right to strike in the circumstances nor the moral right to strike. Counsel highlighted the disastrous consequences that may follow an abrupt shut down of the plant if the strike went on and the possible human tragedy of great magnitude that may visit people of the area. Counsel also highlighted the colossal loss that will be suffered by the Plant by an abrupt shut down as pleaded in the writ petition. These submissions of the learned Senior Counsel were met by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 8, who submitted that the writ petitioner was trying to raise demons without any foundation, for inducing the Court to interfere at this premature stage and the disastrous consequences projected by the Steel Plant were more imaginary than real. Of course, Senior Counsel and the other counsel who appeared for various other Unions, could not positively assert that such consequence as foreseen or projected by the Plant would not occur. Essentially, the plea was that the Management was exaggerating the possible consequences. There had been strikes earlier and nothing like the scenario as painted by the Management had presented itself. Counsel fairly submitted that since this was a public utility service, a strike could not be resorted to in terms of Section 22 of the Act, during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings. But counsel tried to argue that the Management was shying away from the conciliation proceedings by trying to raise all sorts of technical objections. It turned out at the hearing that the Management took the stand before the conciliation officer that there has to be a separate conciliation proceeding with each union and a combined conciliation attempt would bear no fruit. Though there were some attempts at conciliation as can be seen from the rejoinder filed on behalf of the Steel Plant, when the conciliation officer proposed a joint conciliation conference, the Management took the stand that there could only be individual conciliation proceeding with each of the Union and raised an objection before the conciliation officer. It is common ground that the decision of the conciliation officer on that aspect is awaited. Learned Senior Counsel for the Management submitted before us that if the conciliation officer still took the view that it is be a joint or common conciliation, the Management was willing to participate in it and the fact of raising a point that conciliation has to be separate, did not mean that the Management was not participating in the conciliation proceedings. As noticed, learned counsel for respondent No. 8, supported by other counsel, essentially took the stand that the Management was not willing to come to the negotiating table and the strike being a legitimate weapon in the hands of the workers, the Court could not prohibit the strike as sought for by the Steel Plant. It was also argued that the dispute now raised may not come within the purview of NJCS and the fact that there is such a forum cannot stand in the way of the workmen asserting their rights in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act and setting in motion the machinery available under that Act, including the resort to a strike. Counsel argued that the strike was a legitimate weapon in the hands of the Union and it is resorted to bring a recalcitrant Management to the negotiating table, so that the grievances of the workmen could be redressed. There was no reason to interfere at this stage. Counsel appearing for the other Unions, in addition to supporting the submissions of counsel for respondent No. 8, also reiterated that it was the reluctance of the Management to come to the negotiating table that led to the strike notice and if the Management is willing to negotiate, there is no reason why the Unions should go on strike. The argument of the Senior Counsel for the Steel Plant that the workmen had no legal, moral right was also sought to be met.