1997 PLP 223 (PLC)

Paras. Nos.2, 3 and 4 which are reproduced herein under from the petition under section 22‑A(8) (g) of the I.R.O., 1969: (ii) To direct the respondents in particular and through them all their member workers of the company in general not to continue, repeat, commit and resort to any unlawful acts, sit in strike, strike, go‑slow hunger strike, and type of agitation, pressurization, coercing, intimidation or any other act amounting to unfair labour practices and bring complete normalcy in and around the company and do their normal work, and ensure discipline in the company; (iii) To direct the respondents and persons connected with theist and the workers connected with them to refrain from causing any damage whatsoever to building, offices, vehicles, other assets, materials and property whatsoever nature of the company coercive activities, wearing of arm bands, threats of violence slogans, demonstrations, processions, hoisting flags, display of banners, placards, posters and distribution thereof; (iv) To direct and prohibit the respondents in particular and all other workers of the company connected with them in general to refrain from doing any act to conduct themselves or their affairs in a manner calculated to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practices.

4. Interim order under Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (P & F) Regulations, 1973 was passed granting the interim relief vide orders dated 29‑11‑1995.

5. The case of the respondents in their para wise comments and counter- affidavit consisted of legal objections to the effect that (i) no cause of action to bring this petition, (ii) no unfair labour practice was committed etc.

6. On facts it is maintained that the office‑bearers and active members were retrenched and transferred by way of unfair labour practice. However it is admitted that taking out of the procession, raising of slogans and banners outside the factory is a right of the workers and such actions do not amount of unfair labour practice on behalf of the workers. All allegations made in the petition against the respondents are denied to be untrue.

7. I have heard the advocates of the parties and read the pleadings of the parties.

8. I have read the affidavit of P.W. Tajamul Hussain Chishti the General Manager of petitioner company and also the cross‑examination of his witnesses. I find that the respondents have failed to shatter that it is incorrect he was telling the untruth.

9. I have also read the evidence of D.W. Nisar Ali the General Secretary of the respondent‑union. He admits that he and the retrenched workers have filed their cases under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 which are pending in the Labour Court. He admits that his union became C.B.A. on 8‑2‑1996. His evidence does not inspire the confidence as he has a definite grievance of the petitioner and therefore he has gone to Labour Court. No other independent witness has been examined to rebut the allegations made by the petitioner on oath.

10. After considering all the proceedings of this case I am of the confirmed view that the petitioners are allowed to the prayers made in paras. A Nos. 2 to 4 mentioned above and therefore the respondents in particular and all their members are prohibited not to continue or resort to any unfair labour practice or resort to any type of strike, go slow, hunger strike illegal agitation, coercion, pressure or intimidation to compel the petitioners to accept their illegal demands etc. and further they are further directed not to cause any damage to the building, office, vehicles and other assets etc. and further they are restrained from doing any act and to conduct their affairs and themselves in a manner calculated to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practice. Announced in open Court, this 27th day of May, 1996. H.B.T./279/NIRC Petition allowed.