2024:MHC:3519IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASRESERVED ON: 16.08.2024DELIVERED ON: 04.10.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMARW. P.No.23894 of 2024W.M.P.Nos.26151, 26152 & 26155 of 2024NLC India Limited,Represented by its Deputy General Manager (HR)/IR, Neyveli – 607 801.…Petitionervs.1.The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner – Central,No.4, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006.2.The Regional Labour Commissioner – Central,No.4, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chenai – 600 006.3.The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), DA-2, BSNL Staff Quarters, Jaya Nagar, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry – 605 010.4.NLC Jeeva Oppantha Thozilalar Sangam,Represented by its General Secretary, D-13, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Block-24, Neyveli – 607 801.5.NLC Jeeva Oppantha Thozilalar Sangam,Represented by its General Secretary,Door No.01, Panruti Main Road,Krishna Maravadi (Near), Abatharanapuram,Vadalur, Kunrinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 303.6.The Collector,Office of the Collectorate, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.7.The Superintendent of Police,No.18, Pudukuppam New Street, Meenakshi Nagar, Pudukuppam, Cuddalore – 607 001.8.The INDOSERVE SOCIETY,Represented by its Administrator, Opposite to TPS – I Expansion, Neyveli, Cuddalore District.9.The Builders Association of India,Represented by its Chairman, D-7, Gnana Sambanthar Salai, Block – 19, Neyveli – 607 803.10.The NLC Contractors Association,Represented by its President,D-23, High School Road,Block No2, Neyveli – 607 803. …RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Declaration to declare the strike by the alleged members/representatives of the 5th respondent is illegal in terms of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently direct the 5th respondent, its alleged members and the contract workmen of the respondents 8 to 10 from proceeding with the illegal strike and indulging in any mode of agitations either within, or at the Gates, or in the vicinity of the installations of the petitioner company, being a public utility service, which disrupts or has the potential to disrupt the mining and generation activities of the petitioner company or preventing by threats, intimidation or otherwise, free ingress and egress to the willing contract workers and/or workers/executives of the petitioner company, being a public utility service, for attending to their works/shifts/duty or otherwise.For Petitioner : Mr.G.Masilamani, Senior Counsel for Mr.N.NithianandamFor Respondents : Ms.P.J.Anitha for R1 to R3Central Government Standing CounselMr.G.Sankaran, Senior Advocate for R5 for Mr.S.NedunchezhiyanMr.J.Ravindran,Additional Advocate General for R6Assisted by Ms.M.JayanthyMr.V.Meganathan for R7Government Advocate (Criminal Side)Notice to R4, R8-R10 dispensed withO R D E RThe petitioner has filed the present writ petition to declare the strike by the alleged members/representatives of the fifth respondent as illegal in terms of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently direct the fifth respondent, its alleged members and the contract workmen of respondents 8 to 10 from proceeding with the illegal strike and indulging in any mode of agitations either within, or at the Gates, or in the vicinity of the installations of the petitioner Company, being a Public Utility Service, which disrupts or has the potential to disrupt the mining and generation activities of the petitioner Company or preventing by threats, intimidation or otherwise, free ingress and egress to the willing contract workers and/or workers/executives of the petitioner Company form attending their works/shifts/duty or otherwise.

2. Before dealing with the facts, submissions and analysis, I feel it necessary to record the following:
   i. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner made a representation before this Court on 13.08.2024 stating that the fifth respondent Union has called for a strike and if such strike is permitted, it may give rise to unrest in the vicinity of the petitioner Company and create law & order problems. Apprehending such eventualities, the counsel for the petitioner requested for the present Writ Petition to be moved as an urgent motion on the same day. As the urgency expressed by the petitioner was genuine, permission was granted to bring up the writ petition as a lunch motion. While granting such permission, this Court directed that the respondent Union or the counsels who usually appear for the respondent Union should be given notice
   immediately, before the Case was listed for admission.
   ii. When the writ petition was taken up in the afternoon on 13.08.2024, Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that conciliation proceedings have been initiated and requested this Court not to pass any interim direction or orders which may prejudice the rights of the fifth respondent. It was also informed on behalf of the fifth respondent that they will take part in the adjudication on 14.08.2024. The case was, therefore, adjourned to 14.08.2024 at 2.15 p.m., for reporting the outcome of the conciliation proceedings. When the matter was taken up on 14.08.2024, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner informed this Court that though the fifth respondent participated in the conciliation proceedings, they refused to sign the Minutes of the Meeting.
   iii. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent reportedthat the strike notice was issued towards their 21 Charter of Demands.
   However, the same was not even discussed for consideration in the conciliation proceedings. Therefore, according to the senior counsel, the question of signing the conciliation proceedings did not arise and for that reason the fifth respondent, though having participated in the conciliation proceedings, did not sign the minutes.
   iv. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent further submitted that they would file a counter in response to the writ petition to, inter alia, narrate the proceedings that took place on 14.08.2024. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the other respondents informed this Court that the main writ petition itself can be disposed of at the earliest point of time since there is urgency for the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent.
   v. Considering the request and the mutual agreement between the counsels for the petitioner as well as the respondents, the matter was posted on 16.08.2024 at 2.15 P.M, for final hearing. The fifth respondent filed their counter along with a typed set of papers. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner filed additional typeset of papers and compilation of judgments which were duly served on the fifth respondent.
   FACTS IN BRIEF:
3. Facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition, based on submissions made by the learned Senior Counsels for the parties and also ascertainable from the records, are as follows:
   (i) The petitioner is NLC India Limited (herein after referred to as
   “NLCIL”), formerly M/s.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. NLCIL is a
   Central Government Public Sector Undertaking, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. According to the Petitioner, due to abundant availability of lignite in Neyveli area of Cuddalore District, a project to establish the petitioner Company for mining lignite and for generation of power was conceived in the mid 1950’s and thereupon the Central Government established the petitioner Company on 14.11.1956. At present, NLCIL is a Navaratna Government of India Enterprise, under the administrative control of Ministry of Coal. NLCIL in course of time has extended its activities in Neyveli.
   (ii) NLCIL is a pioneer amongst the Public Sector Enterprises in thecountry in energy sector. NLCIL contributes major share in lignite production and significant share in thermal and renewable energy generation. According to NLCIL, it is currently operating 3 open-cast lignite mines of a total installed capacity of 30 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) at Neyveli.
   (iii) As on date, 10,115 employees are working in the petitioner Company including workmen category. Both mining and power generation activities of NLCIL are carried out throughout the year. In NLCIL, there are several Trade Unions and the elections for the Trade Unions are conducted by secret ballots as per the directions of this Court in earlier Writ Petitions. There are two recognised Trade Unions viz., (a) NLC Workers Progressive Union
   (njhopyhsh;fs; Kd;Ndw;w rq;fk;) (Tho.Mu.Sa) and (b) Kanaraka Thozhil
   Pirivu Anna Thozhilalar Sangam (KTPATS). Apart from these recognised Unions, there are several other Unions representing the workmen. The fourth and fifth respondents are two factions of a Union viz., NLC Jeeva Oppanda Thozhilalar Sangam, representing the contracting workers, having large membership.
4. (i) Apart from the regular work force, the sporadic works, such as, Annual Maintenance Works, cleaning works etc., are all carried out through workmen under labour service contracts. The said contract workers are the employees of the respective Contractors in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. All the Contractors including Respondents 8 to 10 in NLCIL have valid licenses under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The award of said contracts is in terms of the provisions of the aforesaid act. These contract workers are paid wages as fixed under the Minimum Wages Act by the Central Government from time to time and are given other benefits, such as, P.F, gratuity etc., by the Contractors.
   (ii) In addition, the contract workers are being paid additional wages, medical facilities, uniforms, various allowances (Housing Assistance, Washing Allowance, Canteen Allowance, and Conveyance Allowance), service weightage etc., by NLCIL as a Principal Employer to the contract workers through the respective Contractors/Employers.
5. (i) In order to ameliorate the conditions of contract workmen, Neyveli
   Lignite Corporation Industrial Co-Operative Service Society Limited, Neyveli

(for short “NLC INDCOSERVE”), had come into existence in 1990. The said INDCOSERVE is a registered Cooperative Society established under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, consisting of members, who were previously on the rolls and deployed by the private contractors. The said Society has its own by-laws governing the enrolment of its members and their service conditions.
(ii) ‘NLC INDCOSERVE’ is also one of the licensed contractors under the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 and it supplies contract workers to NLCIL on labour contract basis. Their members are paid wages and other benefits as per the contract terms but subject to the Minimum Wages Act notified by the Central Government from time to time and are also entitled to applicable benefits, such as P.F, gratuity etc.,

6. While the facts stood thus, pursuant to a demand made by the then recognized Joint Council of Unions (JCU) of NLCIL, a settlement under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 was reached on 18.05.1995 between NLCIL and the then recognized Unions for absorption of INDCOSERVE members/workers working in Operation Area, subject to certain conditions. The said Settlement encompassed only those members/workmen of the INDCOSERVE members/workmen of the INDCOSERVE, who were engaged in the works of NLCIL and it did not cover those members of the INDCOSERVE, who were not engaged in NLCIL as contract workers.
7. In the year 2019, the Trade Unions representing Contract Workers and other similar stakeholders raised a charter of demands and resorted to various agitations including strikes. Consequently, after elaborate discussions with the concerned Unions, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.02.2020 was entered into between Contractors/Employers, Unions representing Contract Workers and other similar stakeholders in the presence of NLCIL as witness wherein several other benefits were extended. The Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was to remain valid till 31.12.2026.
8. (i) Based on the Common Seniority List drawn pursuant to an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.1629 of 2011 (S.L.P.No.9807 of 2003) dated 16.04.2023 and in terms of the Settlement under Section 12(3) of I.D. Act, 1947 dated 07.08.2020, NLCIL in its 212th Board Meeting dated
   02.01.2021 has accorded principal approval for absorption/regularisation of 750 Nos. of Contract Workmen in Phase – I and as such they were absorbed into NLCIL.
   (ii) In phase-II, 510 Contract Workmen and in phase-III, another 517 contract workmen were absorbed/regularized in NLCIL from the Common Seniority List. The said process was completed in February, 2024. In phase-IV along with fresh vacancies, a total of 567 contract workmen from the common Seniority List were taken up for consideration for absorption and the same is presently under progress. The petitioner has absorbed the contract workers to a total strength of 2173 nos. based on the terms of Section 12(3) Settlement dated 07.08.2020 and organizational requirements.
9. (i) The fifth respondent, claiming to represent majority contract workers issued a strike notice dated 01.06.2023 with various demands under Section 22 of the I.D. Act, 1947 to the Petitioner, proposing to go on strike on any date after the expiry of 14-days of receipt of the said notice. This prompted the Petitioner to file a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No. 21245 of 2023 seeking following relief:
   “to issue an order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein (the District Collector, the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police) not to grant any permission (5th respondent herein) from conducting in any mode of agitation(s) either within Neyveli Township, within, or at the Gates, or in the vicinity of the installations of the petitioner company, being a public utility service, which disrupts or has the potential to disrupt the mining and power generation activities of the petitioner company or preventing by threats, intimidation or otherwise, free ingress and egress to the willing contract workers in the petitioner company, being a public utility service, for attending to their work/shift/duty or otherwise and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.”
   (ii) The above Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court, in the admission stage, on 18.07.2023 with a direction to the 1st Respondent herein, namely the District Collector, to consider and pass orders on the representation of NLCIL dated 14.06.2023 after giving opportunities to all concerned.
   (iii) Consequent to the order of this Court, the third Respondent conducted conciliation proceedings on 25.07.2023, as scheduled, and the representatives of the Petitioner had participated in the meeting. However, it was alleged that, the representatives of the 5th Respondent did not participate in the said conciliation meeting and the same was adjourned to 01.08.2023.
10. (i) The said 5th Respondent Union allegedly indulged in road blockade and declared strike from 26.07.2023 (night shift), prompting the Petitioner herein to move before this Court, considering the extraordinary situation, a
    W.P.No.22626 of 2023 with the following prayer:
    “to issue a writ of declaration to declare the strike by the alleged members/representatives of the fourth respondent union is illegal in terms of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently direct the fourth respondent, its alleged members and the contract workmen of the respondents 7 to 9 from proceeding with the illegal strike and indulging in any mode of agitation either within, or at the gates, or in the vicinity of the installations of the petitioner company, being a public utility service, which disrupts or has the potential to disrupt the mining and generation activities of the petitioner company or preventing by threats, intimidation or otherwise, free ingress and egress to the willing contract workers and/or workers/executives of the petitioner company, being a public utility service, for attending to their works/shifts/duty or otherwise.”
    (ii) This Court, vide an order dated 22.08.2023, disposed of the above Writ Petition, by consent, with certain directions, inter alia against the 5th Respondent herein, which will be dealt with in the discussion infra.
11. (i) It is not disputed that, based on the above, the 5th Respondent filed a Charter of Demands with the Central Government, as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.22626 of 2023.
    (ii) Subsequently, a letter dated 29.12.2023 was issued by the 3rd Respondent herein, Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, addressed to the Deputy Chief
    Labour Commissioner (Central), allegedly being the failure report of the
    Conciliation Officer/3rd Respondent.
    (iii) Based on the above report, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, on 16.01.2024 made a reference under Section 12(5) read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication of industrial disputes to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as “CGIT-LC”), Chennai, more particularly on whether the 5th Respondent is entitled to any reliefs as claimed in the Charter of Demands submitted.
    (iv) The above reference made by the Central Government was numbered as I.D.No.11 of 2024 before the CGIT-LC, wherein notice dated 21.02.2024 was issued to the parties to appear and file their respective statements relating to the issue in the order of reference.
12. (i) Meanwhile, the Petitioner herein filed Contempt Petition No. 265 of 2024 against the General Secretary, one Mr. R.Selvamani, alleging wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 22.08.2023 passed in
    W.P.No.22626 of 2023 and the said Contempt Petition is pending before this Court.
    (ii) While things stood thus, the 5th Respondent herein seems to have filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.6813 of 2024, seeking for the following relief:
    “Directing the 1st Respondent (Ministry of Coal, Government of India) to consider the
    Charter of demands submitted by the petitioner Union dated 05.09.2023, and to provide opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner Union and NLC Management/4th Respondent, for redressal of grievances of the Petitioner union in accordance with directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in the orders passed in W.P.No. 22626 of 2023 dated 22.08.2023, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court”
    (iii) Vide order dated 13.03.2024, this Court issued notice which was accepted by all the Respondent counsels with a plea to permit them to file their counters. The above Writ Petition was ordered to be tagged along with
    Contempt Petition No.265 of 2024 and the same is also pending as on date.
13. During the pendency of the aforesaid petitions, the 5th Respondent issued a strike notice dated 01.08.2024 under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, allegedly with identical demands, with an indication to go on strike any date after the expiry of 14 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said strike notice was addressed to:
    “(1) The Director, Personnel HR Corporate Office, NLC (IL) Ltd., Neyveli,
    (2) Special Officer, Indcoserve, Neyveli,
    (3) The President/Secretary, Contractors Association, Neyveli and copies were marked to:
    (i)the Secretary to the Government of India, Labour and
    Employment, New Delhi,
    (ii)The Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi,
    (iii)The District Collector, Cuddalore,
    (iv)The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore,
    (v)The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyveli,
    (vi)The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore,
    (vii)The Revenue Divisional Officer, Viruthachalam, and
    (viii)The Tahsildar, Kurinjipadi.”
14. Taking cognizance of the strike notice dated 01.08.2024 issued by the 5th Respondent, the 2nd Respondent vide proceedings No.1/1/2024-B3 dated
    08.08.2024 initiated conciliation proceedings by invoking Section 12 of the I.D.
    Act, 1947. Pending conciliation proceedings, NLCIL has filed the present Writ Petition on 12.08.2024, challenging the legality of the strike notice dated 01.08.2024 issued by the 5th Respondent, seeking for a Writ of Declaration to the effect that the strike notice dated 01.08.2024 was illegal in terms of Section 22 of the I.D. Act, 1947, and a consequential relief to direct the 5th Respondent and all workmen belonging to the said union, in effect, not to carry on with the strike, either within or near the NLCIL’s premises.
    SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:
    Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.G.Masilamani, appearing for the Petitioner, made the following submissions:
15. (i) Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, after narrating the chequered history of disputes between the Petitioner, the fifth respondent and other registered or recognised Trade Unions, drew the attention of this Court to Section 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act and submitted that NLCIL was a public utility service as defined under the said provision.
    (ii) It was submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel that the Petitioner being a public utility service, there is a possibility that it will disrupt or is potent enough to disrupt mining and generation of power activities of the Company, including possibility of preventing by threats, intimidation or otherwise free ingress and egress of the willing contract workers and/or workers/executives of the petitioner Company, from attending their works/shifts/duty or otherwise.
16. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that it was unequivocally agreed by all the signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.02.2020 entered under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 between Contractors/Employers, Unions representing Contract Workers and other similar stakeholders in the presence of NLCIL, that the said Memorandum of
    Understanding shall remain valid till 31.12.2026. It was also submitted that the Trade Unions agreed that they shall not demand any further rise in wages, allowances or any other benefits whatsoever during the said period.
17. It was the further submission of the Learned Senior Counsel, while referring to Section 12(3) of the Act, that the settlement between the Unions and the Petitioner is binding on the unions which are signatory to the same, including the future members of the unions. It was his submission that since the settlement is valid till 31.03.2026, it has a binding force and the 5th Respondent or any other Trade Union cannot call for a strike, in derogation of the said settlement. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the strike notice is therefore per se illegal and contrary to Section 12(3) of the Act.
18. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in accordance with Section 18 of the Act, the settlement certainly binds all signatories including the future members of the unions which are party to the same and any violations and/or breach of the terms and conditions of the said settlement by any of the signatories is impermissible, incongruous and illogical. It was submitted that after absorption of all workmen as per the Memorandum of Understanding, the 5th Respondent, claiming to represent majority workmen, issued strike notices in the year 2023 and 2024, in clear derogation of the terms of the settlement already arrived between the parties. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner that the notice dated 01.08.2024, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, is also therefore clearly against the terms of the settlement between the parties.
19. It was submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that in the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.22626 of 2023, Paragraph 7(iii) of the said order specifically directed the fourth respondent (5th respondent herein – NLC Jeeva Oppantha Thozilalar Sangam) not to initiate any strike proceedings; not to create any law and order problem; and not to interfere with the day to day affairs of the petitioner corporation, till the disposal of their Chartered Demands pending adjudication with the Central Government. It was submitted that the said order of this court is binding on the members of NLC Jeeva Oppantha Thozilalar Sangam, namely the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent as well as anybody claiming through the said NLC Jeeva Oppantha Thozilalar Sangam.
20. Learned Senior Counsel further drew the attention of this Court to the failure report dated 29.12.2023 under Section 12(4) of the Act issued by the 3rd Respondent herein in respect of the conciliation proceedings that were initiated pursuant to the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.22626 of 2023 and the order of reference of dispute dated 16.01.2024 to the CGIT-LC by the Government of India, and submitted that the said order of reference was not challenged either by the 5th Respondent or any other respondents representing the Unions. According to the learned Senior Counsel, since the issues pertaining to the chartered demands that were referred to the CGIT-LC vide the above reference are pending, the 5th Respondent or other unions cannot resort to parallel, simultaneous and repeated agitations on the same issue.
21. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the very issuance of the strike notice dated 01.08.2024 was in violation and contrary to the orders passed by this Court, and that it could not have been issued, especially during pendency of various proceedings such as I.D.No.11 of 2024 before CGIT-LC,
    Contempt Petition No.265 of 2024 and W.P.No.6813 of 2024 before this Court. It was further submitted that the strike notice dated 01.08.2024, in effect, is nothing but a repetition of the earlier strike notice and the charter demands, in respect of which proceedings are pending before the CGIT under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
22. Learned Senior Counsel referring to Section 20 of the I.D. Act, 1947 submitted that conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to have commenced on the date on which the notice of strike or lockout under Section 22 is received by the Conciliation Officer. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that, in the present case, the conciliation proceeding is deemed to have commenced under Section 20(1) of the Act on the date of receipt of the strike notice dated
    01.08.2024 by the Conciliation Officer.
23. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further drew attention of this Court to Sections 22, 23 and 24 of the Act and contended that resorting to a strike during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal taints the strike with illegality under Section 24 of the Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in view of the charter of demands pending adjudication before the Tribunal, resorting to a strike in respect of the same demands is contrary to what is provided in the said provisions, hence deserving to be declared as illegal. Learned Senior Counsel while referring to Sections 26 and 27 of the Act, submitted that illegal strikes and the instigation thereof are penalised with imprisonment under the I.D. Act, 1947.
24. A submission was also made while referring to Rule 71 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, that the form of notice of strike to be given by the Union/Workmen in public utility service is available as Form L which contains an Annexure. As per the said Annexure, it was submitted that, a copy of notice of strike shall be forwarded to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and
    Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi. It was contended that the 5th Respondent ought to have issued the strike notice as per Form L under Rule 71 of the 1957 Rules. It was a further submission that the said strike notice has to denote the date from which the Union is proposing to resort to strike, and that the notice dated 01.08.2024 issued by the 5th Respondent fails to do so. Hence not being in accordance with Rule 71, it was submitted that the notice dated
    01.08.2024 issued by the 5th Respondent is liable to be declared as illegal.
25. Learned Senior Counsel furnishing the chartered demands made by the 5th Respondent, contended that they are nothing but the demands that are already pending adjudication before the CGIT in I.D.No.11 of 2024, as stated supra. It was contended that the only difference in the present strike notice dated 01.08.2024 is that there are 5 new additional demands which are included along with the previous demands made by the 5th Respondent herein. The comparative study finds place in the additional typed set of petitions filed by the Petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the five new demands are not even those that relate to service conditions. A summary of the new demands, and the response of the Petitioner is given herein under:
    Demand No. Description of Demand Response of Petitioner
    17 The Management of NLC(I)L should withdraw the proceedings towards privatization. The demand relating to privatization is strongly refuted as the same is not a service condition and the petitioner is not obliged to consider.
    18 The Private corporate companies like “Adhani Group” and “Mahalakshmi” should quit from NLC(I)L Tamilnadu. The said demand is highly imaginary and without any material. The demand is out of service jurisprudence.
    19 The Indcoserve Society management did not conduct G.B.Meeting for 7 years. Tamilnadu Government should intervene and save Co.op
    Society’s Democracy. The said demand does not fall under the purview of service conditions.
    20 The Central Government
    Ministry of Labour should take appropriate action against ALC and other connected conciliation officers, those who are colluded with the management and diluting the poor worker’s demands in NLC(I) L. The said demand does not fall under the purview of service conditions.
    21 The Management should not allow to continue the Retired executives as “Advisors” in NLC(I)L. It is the prerogative of the petitioner Company to nominate or appoint the Advisors for the Company to obtain suggestions for its better administration which will benefit the company.
    Apart from the above, it was submitted that all the other 16 chartered demands are all pending adjudication before the Tribunal in I.D.No.11 of 2024.
26. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner drawing attention of this
    Court, to the Writ Petition in W.P.No.6813 of 2024 filed by the 5th Respondent, contended that the Writ Petition was nothing but a scuttling process to circumvent I.D.No.11 of 2024 pending adjudication before the Tribunal, and that if the 5th Respondent was aggrieved by the orders passed in W.P.No.22626 of 2023, the 5th Respondent ought to have filed a review application or a Writ Appeal. Rather, it was submitted that, the 5th Respondent has been resorting to various dilatory tactics to deviate and derail the pending adjudication proceedings in respect of the demands and the strike notice dated 01.08.2024 was nothing but a part of the said process.
27. In support of his submissions, Learned Senior Counsel
    Mr.G.Masilamani relied on the following precedents:
    (i) T.K.Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu & others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 581, on the proposition that any strike should be in accordance with law, and that any strike in violation of the statutory mandates can be termed illegal as contemplated under Section 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
    1947.
    (ii) P. Virudhachalam and Others v. Management of Lotus Mills and another reported in (1998) 1 SCC 650 on the proposition that once a written settlement is arrived at during conciliation proceeding, such settlement under Section 12(3) has a binding effect not only on the signatories, but also on all parties to the industrial dispute, which would cover the entire body of workmen.
    (iii) National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2001) 1 SCC 371 on the point that the judgment laid out in P.Virudhachalam (referred supra) has been constantly followed and that the 5th Respondent cannot now claim that they are not a party to the Section 12(3) settlement and therefore not binding on them.
    (iv) Arasu Viraivu Pokkuvarathu Oozhiyar Sangam vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., and Others reported in 2006 (3) L.L.N. 916 on the proposition that conciliation proceedings are deemed to conclude only when a failure report is received by the appropriate Government, as indicated under sub-section (2) of Section 20, and that until then the respondent unions cannot resort to strike.
    (v) A.Saravanan vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in MANU/TN/0142/2023, to point out that interim orders have been passed restraining unions from resorting to strikes in violations of the provisions of law enumerated under the I.D. Act, 1947. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the orders passed by this Court in the above writ petitions in W.P.Nos.646 & 724 of 2023 dated 09.01.2023 was an exparte ad-interim order and the writ petitions were subsequently dismissed as infructuous.
    (vi) Workers of the Industry Colliery vs. Industry Colliery reported in 1952 SCC OnLine SC 146, on the proposition that strike in contravention of the mandate under Section 20(2) read with Sections 22 to 24 of the Act, is illegal, and the time lines under the Act are to be punctually obeyed.
    Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.G.Sankaran appearing for the 5th Respondent, whose strike notice is sought be declared as illegal, made the following submissions:
28. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.G.Sankaran referring to the definition of strike under Section 2(q) of the Act, would contend that right to strike is enshrined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the fifth respondent being a registered Trade Union has a statutory right to go on strike, the only requirement being the adherence to Section 22 of the Act.
29. Learned Senior Counsel further referring to Section 2(k) and Section 2-A of the Act, contended that any issue or dispute arising between the workmen and the Petitioner organisation is an issue of serious concern. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the issues raised by the 5th Respondent are serious industrial disputes and that the 21 chartered demands made by the 5th Respondent cannot be ignored by the Petitioner on the ground that the new demands are not related to service conditions.
30. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that terms of a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act, cannot be contrary to the provisions of the Act in itself and any stipulation in the said settlement, taking away the statutory rights of Unions such as that of the 5th Respondent to go on strike is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the 5th Respondent is not a party to the settlement under Section 12(3) arrived at by and between the Petitioner and the Trade Unions and therefore the same does not bind the 5th Respondent.
31. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th Respondent would contend that the strike notice given by the 5th Respondent cannot be construed as illegal and there can be no prohibition to call for a strike. It was further contended that the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner on the scope of Sections 22(1)(a) and (b) are not applicable to the present case, and that the 5th Respondent is, in no manner, in violation of the said provision. It was argued by the learned Senior Counsel that scope for violation of Section 24 arises only if the strike is operational before the expiry of 14 days as prescribed under the Act. Hence, it was argued that the present writ petition was premature.
32. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner issued a letter dated 02.08.2024 to the 5th Respondent, which reads as follows:
    “It is noted that notice of the strike has been wrongly addressed to the Management of NLCIL and NLCIL is not the appropriate party for redressing the disputes/demands relating to contract workers engaged by Contractor
    Employees for works in NLC India Limited”,
    and, therefore, contended that the Petitioner, having stated that they are not the right person for redressing the chartered demands made by the 5th Respondent, cannot now make a hue and cry that there is likelihood of law-and-order problems, security threats and that agitations may disrupt the mining and generation activities of the Petitioner.
33. It was also contended that the Chartered demands made by the 5th Respondent are genuine, bonafide and are service demands which, directly or indirectly, affects their livelihood. It was argued that in the conciliation report, the issues raised by the 5th Respondent, reply given by the Petitioner and the findings of the Conciliation Officer has not rendered a finding as contemplated under Section 4, and the said report can therefore not be rendered as closure report under Section 12(4) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
34. It was further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the demands made in the strike notice dated 01.08.2024 are new demands and there is no comparison to the previous demands pending before the Tribunal in I.D.No.11 of 2024 as contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Tribunal, after taking cognizance of I.D.No.11 of 2024, issued
    summons to the Petitioner as well as to the 5th Respondent, and the 5th Respondent is yet to participate in the proceedings. It was further submitted that the Petitioner Company should be condemned by not only the Conciliation Officer but also by the Tribunals and Courts. It was submitted that the working conditions of the workers including the contract labours, casual labours and permanent employees are always at huge risk. It was suggested by the learned senior counsel that the disputes could be resolved only with a human approach to resolve it between concerned parties.
35. In addition to what was argued by the learned senior counsel for the 5th Respondent, the following contentions have been raised in the detailed counter affidavit filed by the 5th Respondent, relevant extracts of which are as follows:
    i. That the Writ Petition seeking for a declaration that the strike is illegal is not maintainable:
    “36…Whereas after receipt of strike notice under Section 22(1) of the Act, the Regional Labour Commissioner initiated conciliation proceedings under Section 20 of the Act and issued notice of hearing to the Respondent Union as well as the Management to be conducted on 14.08.2024 i.e. the 13th day after the date of strike notice. Accordingly, as per the proceedings of Regional Labour Commissioner, the conciliation proceedings posted on 14.08.2024, requiring both management and the Trade Union to participate in the proceedings to carry on the exercise in accordance with the procedure under Section 20 of the Act read with Section 11 and 12 of the Act.
    37…While so, the petitioner NLC India Ltd., filed the present Writ Petition, immediately after the receipt of notice dated 01.08.2024 to declare the proposed strike even before expiring the period of 14 days and before announcement of any date for holding the strike which could be possible only after expiry of 14 days with ill-motive only to thwart the statutory right of the respondent sangam in accordance with the provisions of the ID Act.
    38…In the said circumstances, filing of Writ Petition for the relief as prayed for is ex-facie not maintainable in as much as calling for strike is recognized under the provisions of the ID Act and it is legal if it does not violate any provisions of the statute and there are provisions for illegal strike to declare a strike as illegal strike conducted in contravention of the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is amply clear that the filing of Writ Petition for the relief as prayed for is highly premature and not maintainable and further there cannot be any declaration of strike which is a statutory right provided under the ID Act as illegal.
    ii. That the conciliation proceedings conducted by the 2 nd Respondent on 14.08.2024 were not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, and that the conciliation proceedings already stand closed.
    39…The Respondent sangam has participated in the conciliation proceedings conducted by the Regional Labour Commissioner (RLC) on 14.08.2024, as scheduled. Whereas, the RLC has refused to consider or even record the demands made by the Respondent sangam for redressal of grievances of the contract labours on the ground that the Industrial Dispute is pending before the CGIT consequent to referral from the Coal Secretary though CLC and ALC.
    40…The RLC has never acted in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 12(2) of the ID Act, by which the conciliation officer shall, for the purpose of bringing about the settlement of the dispute, without delay investigate the dispute and may do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducting the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute.
    41…Whereas, instead of recording any of the claim made on behalf of the Respondent Sangam, while declining to entertain the conciliation proceedings on the ground that the matter is pending before the CGIT, the RLC has proceed to advice only the respondent sangam not to resort to strike as well other agitations that are statutorily permissible safeguards under the provisions of the ID Act. On the face of it, there was not even a single advise to the management to consider the grievances or even to call for the negotiation with contract Labour’s Union to resolve the problems.
    42…That strangely, the RLC while drawing the minutes of the meeting, has recorded the participation of representatives/officials of NLC Management as witnesses in the proceedings, which is evident from the fact that the representatives of NLC Management has signed the “minutes as witnesses”. Hence, it is amply clear that the conciliation proceedings by RLC is against the statutory provisions by calling the Management representatives as witness and hence the entire proceedings suffers malice in law and malice in fact and stand vitiated.
    43…In the said circumstances, as the 5th respondent Union not able to consent to the minutes drawn by the RLC, it has declined to sign the minutes of the meeting. Consequently, after recording the protest made by the 5th respondent sangam also by stating that the reference to CGIT which is not legally sustainable, nevertheless, the RLC proceed to close the conciliation proceedings. Accordingly, the conciliation proceedings initiated by the RLC stand closed.
    iii. That the strike notice dated 01.08.2024 was necessitated due to the continued non-resolution of the disputes raised by the 5 th Respondent
    Union.
    “20…In the said circumstances, the NLC Management made statement that the Conciliation proceedings dated 16.01.2024 issued by ALC, 3rd Respondent, is in compliance with High Court order. Therefore, the Petitioner Union was constrained to submit a detailed representation to the District Collector by stating that the affected workers are pushed to go on various allegations and prepared to give strike notice also and the District Collector was requested to intervene in the matter and to take appropriate action in the interest on ten thousand workers.
    21…Consequently, the District Collector, Cuddalore district, the 6th Respondent herein addressed a letter to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Government of India dated 30.01.2024 with a request to examine the demands of the Union in a time bound manner and to settle the issue amicably in view of larger public interest. In the meantime, the Petitioner Union also constrained to forward a strike notice dated 29.01.2024 to the employer NLC to go on strike from any day after 14 days expiry of the strike notice. Whereas, the Petitioner Union has not resorted to strike till date.
    24…Any such return notice by NLC is highly demeaning and disheartening by stating that the contract employees are not connected to NLC and they should go to the Contractor Employers, whereas ten thousand workers employed as contract workers in NLC for more than 25 years and Section 12(3) Settlement entered between the Petitioner Sangam and NLC. The settlements were arrived in the year 2008, 2010, 2012 wherein the Petitioner Union is the signatory to the settlement. Accordingly, the Petitioner Union for contract workers was a party to the settlement proceedings along with other recognized union meant for permanent employees.
    30…That apart from closing the hearing resulted in denial of the consideration of the grievances of the contract labours of the Respondent sangam as per Charter of demand already submitted, the Secretary, Ministry of Coal has instructed the Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC) through Chief Labour Commissioner (CLC), Delhi to refer the matter to CGIT, Chennai for further adjudication.
    34…In the said circumstances, after having exhausted all the remedies through agitation etc., no other option except to resort to strike, issued strike notice dated 01.08.2024 in accordance with Section 22(1) of the Act by giving notice to the employer that the Contract Labours of 5th Respondent Sangam proposed go on strike from any date after 14 days expiry of receipt of this notice for the reasons and demands enclosed therewith. The 5th respondent Sangam proceed to resort the strike in conformity with the procedure laid down under the provisions of the ID Act without any deviation.”
36. It was also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the 5th Respondent that the strike notice was given on 01.08.2024 and they have 14 working days to go on strike. It was contended that the petitioner has chosen to file the Writ Petition before the expiration of the 14 days and therefore, the writ petition is premature and not maintainable. It was further contended by the learned senior counsel that this Court ought not to have issued notice before the expiry of the statutory period i.e. 14 days, and therefore the notice issued to the respective Respondents is without jurisdiction.
37. Learned Senior Counsel for the 5th Respondent Mr.G.Sankaran relied on the following precedents in support of his contentions:
    (i) Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak reported in (1994) 5 SCC 572 on the proposition that right to strike is an essential right of the employees and a ‘weapon of last resort’, keeping in mind the abnormal imbalance of power in an employer-employee relationship. The following paragraphs, as extracted below, were specifically pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel:
    “29. The strike as a weapon was evolved by the workers as a
    form of direct action during their long struggle with the employers. It is essentially a weapon of last resort being an abnormal aspect of the employer-employee relationship and involves withdrawal of labour disrupting production, services and the running of the enterprise. It is abuse by the labour of their economic power to bring the employer to see and meet their viewpoint over the dispute between them. In addition to the total cessation of work, it takes various forms such as working to rule, go slow, refusal to work overtime when it is compulsory and a part of the contract of employment, “irritation strike” or staying at work but deliberately doing everything wrong, “running-sore strike”, i.e., disobeying the lawful orders, sit-down, stay-in and lie-down strike etc. etc. The cessation or stoppage of work whether by the employees or by the employer is detrimental to the production and economy and to the well-being of the society as a whole. It is for this reason that the industrial legislation while not denying the right of workmen to strike, has tried to regulate it along with the right of the employer to lockout and has also provided a machinery for peaceful investigation, settlement, arbitration and adjudication of the disputes between them. Where such industrial legislation is not applicable, the contract of employment and the service rules and regulations many times, provide for a suitable machinery for resolution of the disputes. When the law or the contract of employment or the service rules provide for a machinery to resolve the dispute, resort to strike or lockout as a direct action is prima facie unjustified. This is, particularly so when the provisions of the law or of the contract or of the service rules in that behalf are breached. For then, the action is also illegal.
38. The question whether a strike or lockout is legal or illegal does not present much difficulty for resolution since all that is required to be examined to answer the question is whether there has been a breach of the relevant provisions. However, whether the action is justified or unjustified has to be examined by taking into consideration various factors some of which are indicated earlier. In almost all such cases, the prominent question that arises is whether the dispute was of such a nature that its solution could not brook delay and await resolution by the mechanism provided under the law or the contract or the service rules. The strike or lockout is not to be resorted to because the party concerned has a superior bargaining power or the requisite economic muscle to compel the other party to accept its demand. Such indiscriminate use of power is nothing but assertion of the rule of “might is right”. Its consequences are lawlessness, anarchy and chaos in the economic activities which are most vital and fundamental to the survival of the society. Such action, when the legal machinery is available to resolve the dispute, may be hard to justify. This will be particularly so when it is resorted to by the section of the society which can well await the resolution of the dispute by the machinery provided for the same. The strike or lockout as a weapon has to be used sparingly for redressal of urgent and pressing grievances when no means are available or when available means have failed, to resolve it. It has to be resorted to, to compel the other party to the dispute to see the justness of the demand. It is not to be utilised to work hardship to the society at large so as to strengthen the bargaining power. It is for this reason that industrial legislation such as the Act places additional restrictions on strikes and lockouts in public utility services.
    (ii) Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Ltd. vs. State and Others reported in 2007 (4) L.L.N. 1001, on the proposition that legality or illegality of a strike, more specifically on whether it would be violative of the provisions in Sections 22 and 23, cannot be decided at a premature stage in a Writ Petition.
    (iii) Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 724, for the proposition that the Court cannot issue a direction to refrain the implementation of a statutory provision without holding it constitutionally invalid. Being so, it was argued that the Court cannot issue directions in the nature of injunction injuncting the Respondent unions from going on strike in derogation of the statutory rights which are not circumstantial. More specifically, the following paragraph was relied therein:
    “13. We are of the view that in absence of any specific challenge to the validity of the statutory provisions, the High Court ought not to have undertaken the exercise of going into the question of repugnancy. We fail to understand the propriety of the observation that the law departments of the State and the Union should have a dialogue to remove the discrepancy. Moreover, the High Court has not proceeded to strike down the relevant provisions which were held to be repugnant to PESA. It only directs that till the discrepancy is removed by the legislature, certain provisions of the 1961 Act and the rules framed thereunder shall be ignored. Such approach by the writ Court is not at all called for. Without holding that the statutory provisions are not constitutionally valid, the High Court could not have issued a direction not to implement the statutory provisions.”
39. In rejoinder, on the issue of maintainability, learned Senior Counselfor the Petitioner Mr.G.Masilamani contended that in view of the definition under Section 2(n)(iv), the Petitioner company falls under public utility service and the Writ Petition, being in respect of a public utility service, is therefore absolutely maintainable. Apart from that, it was submitted that, there is a reasonable apprehension on the minds of the petitioner that if the strike is permitted to go on as per the notice of the fifth respondent, there is a likelihood of breach of law and order and the petitioner may not be in a position to function. Therefore, under the apprehension of likelihood of breach of peace by virtue of strike notice issued by the fifth respondent on 01.08.2024, the petitioner has every right to approach this Court for protection to the property and the lives of the persons employed in different categories in the petitioner’s Company. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Fifth Schedule to the I.D. Act, 1947 which deals with unfair labour practices that are prohibited under the Act.
40. The learned counsels appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3, 6 and 7 respectively submitted that the said Respondents would abide by any orders that were to be passed by this Court. Since the arguments were confined by the Petitioner and the 5th Respondent to the legality/illegality of the strike notice dated 01.08.2024 issued by the 5th Respondent and the issues consequent thereto, the Petitioner did not insist upon issuance of notice in respect of the 4th, 8th to 10th Respondents, and the matter was reserved for orders on 16.08.2024 after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, in the manner as mentioned above.
    ANALYSIS:
41. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels for the Petitioner and the 5th Respondent, and the learned counsels for the other Respondents, it is discernible that the following issues arise for consideration:
    i. Maintainability of the present Writ Petition.
    ii. Legality/Illegality of the Strike Notice dated 01.08.2024 issued by the
    5th Respondent.
    iii. Binding nature of the Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement dated 26.02.2020 under Section 12(3) of the Act on the 5th Respondent.
42. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Industrial
    Disputes Bill, 1946, published in The Gazette of India, 1946, Part V, pp.239240, inter alia, reads thus:
    “Experience of the working of the Trade Disputes Act, 1929, has revealed that its main defects is that while restraints have been imposed on the rights of strike and lock-out in public utility services, no provision has been made to render the proceedings institutable under the Act for the settlement of an industrial dispute, either by reference to a Board of Conciliation or to a Court of inquiry, conclusive and binding on the parties to the dispute.
    This defect was overcome during the war by empowering under Rule 81A of the Defence of India Rules the Central Government to refer industrial disputes to adjudicator and to enforce their awards. Rule 81 A, which was to lapse on the 1st October, 1946, is being kept in force by the Emergency Powers (Continuance) Ordinance, 1946, for a further period of six months; and as industrial unrest in checking which this rule has proved useful, is gaining momentum due to the stress of post-industrial readjustment, the need of permanent legislation in replacement of this rule is self-evident.
    …The power to refer disputes to Industrial Tribunals and enforce their awards is an essential corollary to the obligation that lies on the Government to secure conclusive determination of the disputes with a view to redressing the legitimate grievances of the parties thereto, such obligation arising from the imposition of restraints on the right of strike and lock-out, which must remain inviolate, except where considerations of public interest override such rights.
    The Bill also seeks to re-orient the administration of the conciliation machinery provided in the Trade Disputes Act. Conciliation will be compulsory in all disputes in public utility services…”
    Even the long cause title to the Act, reads as follows:
    “An Act to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, and for certain other purposes.”
43. As evident from the above, one of the core ideas/objects behind the enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was the idea of giving quicker resolution to industrial disputes, which would not only help in avoiding unnecessary strikes/lock-outs, but would also be beneficial to the workmen, whose right to bargain by adopting the course of a strike as contemplated under the I.D. Act, has been subjected to certain restraints that are in-built in the Act.
44. No doubt, it is settled law that ‘Right to Strike’ is not a fundamental right, as laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1962 SC 1166. While the learned Senior Counsel for the 5th Respondent argued much on ‘right to strike’ being enshrined in the statute as a statutory right, delving into whether such a right is a statutory right or not may not be material in the present case, while also noting that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in T.K.Rangarajan v.
    Government of Tamil Nadu & others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 581, has held such a right not to be a ‘statutory right’. Rather, it is more pertinent to note how
    ‘strike’ is a double-edged sword and is therefore rightly perched in the Industrial
    Disputes Act, 1947 with the in-built restraints and mechanisms that it contains. Justice V. Krishna Iyer, in his usual eloquence, in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha reported in (1980) 2 SCC 593
    commented on the concept of ‘strike’, and its role in collective bargaining, as follows:
    “129. A selective study of the case law is proper at this place. Before we do this, a few words on the basis of the right to strike and progressive legal thinking led by constitutional guidelines is necessitous. The right to unionise, the right to strike as part of collective bargaining and subject to the legality and humanity of the situation, the right of the weaker group viz. labour, to pressure the stronger party viz. capital, to negotiate and render justice, are processes recognised by industrial jurisprudence and supported by Social Justice. While society itself, in its basic needs of existence, may not be held to ransom in the name of the right to bargain and strikers must obey civilised norms in the battle and not be vulgar or violent handlooms Industry, represented by intransigent Managements, may well be made to reel into reason by the strike weapon and cannot then squeal or wail and complain of loss of profits or other ill-effects but must negotiate or get a reference made. The broad basis is that workers are weaker although they are the producers and their struggle to better their lot has the sanction of the rule of law. Unions and strikes are no more conspiracies than professions and political parties are, and, being far weaker, need succour. Part IV of the Constitution, read with Article 19, sows the seeds of this burgeoning jurisprudence. The Gandhian quote at the beginning of this judgment sets the tone of economic equity in Industry. Of course, adventurist, extremist, extraneously inspired and puerile strikes, absurdly insane persistence and violent or scorched earth policies boomerang and are anathema for the law. Within these parameters the right to strike is integral to collective bargaining.”
45. Viewed in the above background, the success or the failure of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, lies in the effectiveness of the dispute resolution mechanisms that has been devised under the Act, and, in turn, its ability to consequently reduce/do away with strikes/lock-outs, to ensure the smooth functioning of the industries. To put it in other words, the dispute resolution mechanisms under the Act are akin to oil for the machines. Lesser the friction, lesser the wear and tear, more the longevity and productivity.
46. Before commenting on the merits of the present dispute, it is important to address certain preliminary issues. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has sought for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration seeking to declare a strike notice, issued by a registered union, illegal, with an indirect prayer to restrain them from resorting to strikes either within or near the Petitioner’s premises. It is clear and categorical that no relief or directions are sought in respect of the official Respondents, i.e., Respondents 1 to 3, 6 and 7.
47. Two aspects are to be considered: Firstly, on whether such a relief for a Writ of Declaration that a strike is illegal, can be entertained by this Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and Secondly, on whether the Writ Petition could be maintained in respect of a relief as against the 5th Respondent herein. While the former is more on entertainability, the latter goes to the maintainability.
48. It is important to note the following relevant provisions of the I.D.
    Act, 1947 on the preliminary issues mentioned above:
    (i) Sections 2(d), (e) and (f):
    2(d) “conciliation officer” means a conciliation officer appointed under this Act.
    2(e) “conciliation proceeding” means any proceeding held by a conciliation officer or Board under this Act.
    2(f) – “Court” means a Court of Inquiry constituted under this Act.
    (ii) Sections 2(k) and 2(q):
    2(k): “Industrial Dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-
    employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person
    2(q): “strike” means a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination or a concerted refusal, or a refusal, under a common understanding, of any number of persons who are or have been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment;
    (iii) Section 7:
    (7): Labour Courts – (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act
    (iv) Section 7A:
    (7A) Tribunals – (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official
    Gazette, constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter, whether specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act.
    (v) Section 10(1)(d):
49. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals– (1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any
    time, by order in writing,
    …
    (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication.
    …
    Provided further that where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under section 22 has been given, the appropriate Government shall, unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be inexpedient so to do, make a reference under this sub-section notwithstanding that any other proceedings under this Act in respect of the dispute may have commenced.
    (vi) Section 24:
50. Illegal strikes and lock-outs.— (1) A strike or a lock-out shall be illegal if—
    (i) it is commenced or declared in
    contravention of section 22 or section 23; or
    (ii) it is continued in contravention of an order made under sub-section (3) of section 10 or sub-section (4A) of section 10A.
    (vii) Second Schedule:
    Matters within the Jurisdiction of Labour
    Courts
    …
51. Illegality or otherwise of a strike or lock-out.
52. A conjoint reading of the above provisions resul