Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health v Hospital Employees Union (2006) ILLJ 781 (Del) demonstration, immunity, strike

Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health v Hospital Employees Union (2006) ILLJ 781 (Del) demonstration, immunity, strikeSection 17 and 18 of the Act provides certain immunities to the trade union such as immunity from criminal conspiracy in trade disputes and from civil suits in certain cases, but these are made available only to the registered trade unions.

S. 17 of the Trade Unions Act lays down the grounds for providing the members of a trade union immunity from prosecution in criminal proceedings for any act performed by them while carrying out legitimate functions of the trade union. The section provides that no member of a registered trade union will be found liable under the provisions of s. 120B (2) IPC, 1860 in respect of any agreement made between the members for the purpose of furthering any object enumerated in s. 15 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, unless the agreement in question is an agreement to commit an offence. Under the definition of s. 17, the agreement' must be an agreement to do something contained in s. 15 and it cannot be an agreement to commit an offence as defined under s. 40 IPC.

S. 18 of the Trade Unions Act provides for exemption from prosecution in civil cases. It essentially states that immunity from civil proceedings is granted to the office bearers and members of a registered trade union for the offence of bringing about a breach of contract of employment between the employer and the employee. The trade union itself is also granted immunity from civil proceedings for the offence of inducing a person to break his contract of employment between the employer and the employee or of interfering with the trade, business or employment of some other person, provided that such inducement is in furtherance of a trade dispute. However the section clearly states that this inducement must be entirely legal and must be done by lawful means.

in the case of Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health And Neuro Services v Vidya Sagar Hospital Employees Union, in which the court allowed the members of the union to peacefully demonstrate outside the radius of 200 metres from the hospital premise so that their act won't interfere in the normal functioning of the hospital.

Further:

From these following principles can be culled out:-

1.Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain suit of this nature

2.Immunity given to the Unions under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, does not extend to conduct those acts which may amount to offence.

3.Peaceful demonstration is a fundamental right of the Unions/employees.

It is the legitimate right of the workers to make legitimate demands and when not met, even go on peaceful but legal strike, a right so recognized under labor laws. Trade union has a right to pursue its trade union activities by peaceful methods. However, in exercise of such a right unions/employees cannot disrupt the functioning of the employer or obstruct willing workers from performing their duties. Further they cannot indulge in the acts of violence, physical assault, intimidation, threats etc.

Thus while it may be the right of the union to hold peaceful demonstration, such demonstrations cannot be allowed to become violent or intimidating in nature. The safety of those visitors who are visiting the employers premises as well, as those willing workers, including their smooth ingress and egress is also to be ensured. This balance is to strike between the two competing and conflicting interests. The Courts have devised the methods to ensure it by fixing the distance from the employers premises within which such demonstration etc would not be permissible meaning thereby Unions can resort to these demonstrations only beyond a particular distance. In this way they are able to hold peaceful demonstration and at the same time it is ensured that such peaceful demonstration does not relegate the aforesaid rights of the employer.

Orissa Textiles & Stell Ltd. V State of Orissathe petitioner's case is that the 'right to continue business' within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution includes right to close down a business and the very fact that the citizen cannot exercise the said right, inasmuch as permission of the State Government is required under Section 25O before closing ; down the business, infringes the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Held:The new Section insofar as it empowers the appropriate Government to refuse to grant permission to an employer to close his industrial undertaking does not, in our view, infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed: by Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution being saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

It is too well-settled that if the competent authority passed an order in exercise of his power under a statute without conforming to the statutory requirements, then the order gets vitiated and can be struck down if challenged before a court of law, but that does not make the statute itself unconstitutional. The right to close a business is an integral part of the fundamental right to carry on business and is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The closure of any industrial undertaking is likely to have adverse impact on the interest of the working class and, therefore, the Legislature enacted the provision of Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act to consider the interest of the workers employed in a large industrial undertaking. The interest of the labour has not to be ignored and, therefore, a balance has been struck by prescribing the manner of seeking permission for closure and by providing for dealing with the said application by the competent authority and providing guidelines for the exercise of such power.Workmen of Dewan Tea Estate v Their Management

The SC refused to accept the contention that S. 25 C of the Act recognizes a common law right of Industrial employer to lay off his workman and observed that it would be legitimate to hold that lay-off which primarily gives rise to a claim for compensation under S. 25 C must be layoff as defined in Section 2(kkk).so the workman who claims the benefit under S. 25 C must be workman who are laid-off and laid off for the reasons contemplated in S 2(kkk). No common law right can be spelt out from S. 25C. According to the provisions of S. 25 C a workman who has completed one year of continuous service as defined in S. 25B and whose name is borne in the muster roll has been laid-off will be entitled to 50% of the total wages