W.P.No.24488 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.26800 of 2024N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.The writ petition is filed as against the proposed strike, the strike notice was given by the second respondent.2.The brief facts are as follows:The second respondent is the General Secretary of the TradeUnion. The second respondent is an Union for the Gangman employee in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in various categories. The second respondent issued a strike notice to the writ petitioner vide their notice
W.P.No.24488 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.26800 of 2024
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The writ petition is filed as against the proposed strike, the strike notice was given by the second respondent.
2.The brief facts are as follows:
The second respondent is the General Secretary of the Trade
Union. The second respondent is an Union for the Gangman employee in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in various categories. The second respondent issued a strike notice to the writ petitioner vide their notice dated 29.07.2024. The notice was given as contemplated under Section 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Trade Union has made 3 Chartered Demands.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that pursuant to this strike notice, a conciliation meeting was convened on 13.08.2024 and it was again continued on 20.08.2024. The second respondent participated in the conciliation proceedings and insisted upon their chartered demands. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Section 20 of the Act, that, once the strike notice is issued, the conciliation proceedings is deemed to have been commenced. In this case, the conciliation proceedings was initiated on 13.08.2024 and it was continued on 20.08.2024. On both the occasions, the petitioner and the second respondent had participated in the conciliation proceeding participated before the first respondent
4.The first respondent before whom the conciliation proceedings is now pending, and the first respondent has directed the second respondent not to go on strike as per their strike notice dated 29.07.2024.
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that once the conciliation proceedings has commenced, the Conciliation Officer has to give a report, if the report is negative in nature then, it will be referred to the Tribunal or before the Labour Court for appropriate adjudication. He further contended that neither the petitioner nor the second respondent can go against the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6.Learned counsel for the petitioner informed this Court, that on, 19.08.2024, there was a demonstration organized by the second respondent before the Head Office of the petitioner and in which, it was decided by the second respondent, that, there will be an indefinite strike from 22.08.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2004 SCC OnLine Mad 1974, where this Court has held as follows:
- This judgment was referred to by the Supreme Court in VST Industries Limited v. VST Industries Workers’ Union, [2001 (88) FLR 548 (SC).] and has not been disapproved. Here, the respondents 1 and 2, which are the registered bodies under Trade Unions Act, are legal persons and owe a duty under the statute, the provisions of which have been mentioned supra, not to go on strike unless the provisions of subsection (1) of section 22 of the Act are complied with. The Parliament has properly thought of imposing restrictions on the employees from striking the work enumerating the conditional prohibitions. That apart, section 22, including section 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act is still on the statute book and has not been declared ultra vires the Constitution and as the right to strike a work is regulated by the statute and as the statutory duty has not been followed by the respondents 1 and 2 and as the respondents 1 and 2 would have been entitled to challenge if any illegal lock-out has been declared by the employer, equally the appellant Corporation also is entitled, to seek enforcement of the statutory prohibition imposed upon the respondents 1 and 2 from striking the work as it is in utter disregard and violation of Clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the circumstances, the writ appeal and writ petition are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.A.M.Ps. and W.P.M.Ps. are closed.
7.Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the strike call given by the second respondent is not only in contravention of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act but also against the judgment of this Court in the judgment stated supra.
8.Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon an order of this Court in W.P.No.646 of 2023 in which, this Court while passing an exparte order has enumerated all provisions of law and directed that such strike cannot go on against the Industrial Disputes Act.
9.Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made out a case that the petitioner is a public utility corporation. If the strike is allowed it will hamper the administration and there is likelihood of failure to the distribution of power and electricity to the entire State.
10.Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the urgency in the matter and requested to move this writ petition as lunch motion. Considering the urgent situation, this Court has granted permission to take up the Writ Petition today (21.08.2024)at 2.15 p.m and while granting permission, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to intimate the second respondent regarding lunch motion to be moved before this Court by any means.
11.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent has been informed by way of email, that the writ petition will be taken up at 2.15 p.m. This email notice was served on the second respondent in the email id given by them in their letterhead. Without going into the veracity of the receipt of the email communication, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:
There shall be an order of injunction restraining the second respondent from resorting to illegal strike/sit in strike pursuant to strike notice dated 29.07.2024 pending conciliation before the first respondent until further orders.
12.Issue notice to the respondents returnable by three weeks.
Private notice is also permitted.
21.08.2024
pam
Note: Issue order copy on 21.08.2024
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. pam
W.P.No.24488 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.26800 of 2024
21.08.2024
