Scribd
Upload
54 views3 pages

Case Name:: W.P.No.11665 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014

This case involves a dispute between a factory's management and its workers who were on strike. The management filed a petition seeking police protection, claiming workers were obstructing the factory and stealing equipment. The workers contended the strike was legal as the factory had engaged many contract workers without proper appointments or confirmations. The court found there was a violent atmosphere and ordered police protection to continue but allowed the strike to occur 200 meters from the factory, as both parties' rights could not be ignored. It did not judge the legality of the strike and left that issue to be determined by the appropriate forum.

Uploaded by

Harsha Ammineni
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
54 views3 pages

Case Name:: W.P.No.11665 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014

This case involves a dispute between a factory's management and its workers who were on strike. The management filed a petition seeking police protection, claiming workers were obstructing the factory and stealing equipment. The workers contended the strike was legal as the factory had engaged many contract workers without proper appointments or confirmations. The court found there was a violent atmosphere and ordered police protection to continue but allowed the strike to occur 200 meters from the factory, as both parties' rights could not be ignored. It did not judge the legality of the strike and left that issue to be determined by the appropriate forum.

Uploaded by

Harsha Ammineni
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Case name:

Management of MRF Limited V. Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu,


Department of Labour & Employment & Ors1
Facts:
Management of the MRF tiers filed this petition claiming that due to non implementation of
the agreed conditions in the conciliation proceedings by the workmen vide collective
bargaining on e 11th Tripartite settlement dated 07.07.2009. the management has suffered a
loss of Rs 150 crores the petitioners further contend that the previous settlement of
conciliation was not done the petitioners also initiated a representation which the respondents
did not accept but a new conciliation process was introduced by the workmen on 23.01.2014
the demands of the petitioners with new demands and rules such acts of the respondents have
vandalized the spirit of the Collective Bargaining the respondents workmen claim that their
branch employees of Chennai were not being payed on par with other branch employees
matter pending was reffered to industrial tribunal and not yet settled due to no cooperation of
either parties during such circumstances writ is filed.

Issues:
 Whether the act of respondents in intiating a fresh demand without the settlement of
the previous dispute justifiable
 Whether the charter of demands issued by the petitioners vide representation meet the
principles of natural justice

Reasoning:
Based on the failure report of the second respondent dated 23.01.2014, the State Government
had obtained necessary reports from the Commissioner of Labour with regard to referring the
charter of demands raised by the trade Union for adjudicating before the Industrial Tribunal.
Further, the Management has not submitted any reply in respect of the charter of demands
raised by the third respondent herein. The Management has represented on 28.03.2014 to the
first respondent and the petitioner-Management was infused to file their demands as part of
reply before the Tribunal, while Industrial Dispute is being heard by the Tribunal. The work
force had raised 20 demands and out of them 16 demands were rejected by the first
1
W.P.No.11665 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014
respondent and referred before the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication the first respondent,
the dispute between the workforce and Management has been referred to the Industrial
Tribunal, Chennai for adjudication. Accordingly, the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai had issued
a summon to the Management and the Union for their appearance on 28.04.2014 at 10.30
a.m. Due to the non co-operation of the Management, the is pending for more than one year.
Judgment:
the writ petition is allowed

Case name:
The Management of SNY Autotech Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Sriperumbudur Taluk V.
The Inspector of Police, C1 Police Station, Sriperumbudur & Another2
Facts:
The petitioners filed this case seeking police protection for their factory contending that
employees whom are on strike from 31.08.2018 are obstructing the other employees and
goods from entering into the premises the petitioners also contend that the workers are
switching off the C.C T.V cameras and are stealing equipment of the industry the petitioners
further state that they have filed a police report on 04.09.2018 where few police were
deployed but are not in a position to control the crowd so petition is filed seeking the further
police protection. The respondents on the other hand contend that the strike was intiated by
the labour because The petitioner company had engaged 120 workers to work in the factory,
out of which 58 workers are treated as direct workmen and the remaining are treated as
contract labour and there is no order of appointment given to the workers and no workmen
has been confirmed till date. Therefore a charter of demands was raised by the second
respondent union and the same is pending conciliation before the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram When the workers reported for work on 03.09.2018,
nearly 18 workers were stopped at the gate and were refused employment. This act of the
petitioner will amount to an illegal lockout under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore
the strike that was called for by the respondent union against the illegal lockout and legal
strike will be hindered due to police force deployment the right of collective bargaining, to
ensure that the workmen are not exploited, cannot be compromised by invoking article 226
by the petitioners was the contention of respondents.
Issues:
 Whether the strike is legal or illegal
2
W.P. No. 23427 of 2018
 Whether the police protection needed to be continued
Reasoning:
the court stated that it is not going into look into issue in regard to legality of the strike as the
following dispute need to be dealt by the industrial tribunal however the court relied upon the
investigation report which it initially instructed to conduct according to the report the court
learnt that there has been violent atmosphere outside the industrial premises and the activities
of the industry were obstructed considering the same the police protection shall remain and
continued however the strike may continue 200mts away from the industrial premises as the
rights of the parties cannot be remained undisputed
Judgment:
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
a. The 1st respondent Police shall provide Police Protection to the factory premises of the
petitioner Company to ensure that there is free ingress and egress of men and materials.
b. The 1st respondent shall ensure that no law and order problem is created near the factory
premises and normalcy is maintained.
c. The 2nd respondent can conduct the demonstrations/strike, 200 mts away from the
petitioner's Factory premises.
d. It is left open to the parties to agitate their respective rights before the appropriate
forum/Court and this order will not have any bearing on the respective rights of parties. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy