Delhi High Court
National Aviation Company Of ... vs Air Corporations Employees Union ... on 13 January, 2012
Author: G. S. Sistani
8
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1089/2010 & IA.7396/2010
% Judgment dated 13.01.2012
NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms.Ratna Dhingra and Mr.S.S. Dabas,
Advocate for the plaintiff.
versus
AIR CORPORATIONS EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS ..... Defendant
Through: Mr.Interjit Singh, Adv. for defendant no.1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORDER)
1.
Plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction
against the defendants.
2. Plaintiff is a Government of India Undertaking, a new entity, which came
into existence on 27.8.2007 as a result of two transferor companies i.e.
erstwhile Indian Airlines Limited and erstwhile Air India Limited being
dissolved resulting in consolidation of the business of the two companies
into new entity, which is the plaintiff.
3. Aggrieved by the action of the defendants whereby the defendants during
the continuation of the consolidation proceedings, pending in terms of
Section 22 of Industrial Disputes Act, with regard to timely payment of
pages, the defendants had given a call for a strike. Having regard to the
settled position of law and the issue involving large number of passengers.
While issuing summons in this matter, the following interim order was
passed on 26.05.2010:
"....
IA No. 7396/2010 (under O.39 R.1 and 2 CPC)
Issue notice to the non-applicants/defendants. Let reply be
filed within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next
date.
Mr Bhasin, the learned counsel for the plaintiff says that
there is conciliation proceedings pending in terms of Section 22 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the "I.D. Act"). It is his
submission that the conciliation proceedings pertain to the timely
payment of wages. The plaintiff has issued a notification dated
14.05.2010 indicating therein that wages for a given month shall be
paid on the 7th day of the succeeding month. The defendants and
their members are disputing this position and, therefore, the
pendency of the conciliation proceedings. Mr Bhasin further
submits that during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, a
call for a strike is illegal.
For this purpose, Mr Bhasin has drawn my attention to the
provisions of Section 24(1) of the I.D. Act. It is his contention that
the provisions of Section 22(d) of the I.D. Act being in operation,
the strike is illegal. Apart from the aforestated legal position; Mr
Bhasin has vociferously contended before me that the issue
involves a large number of passengers who travel by the airline
operated by the plaintiff. It is his contention that even today the
airline is operating with the help of skeletal staff, which
has resulted in cancellation of nearly 50% of the flights. The
enormity of the problem that the plaintiff is facing is reflected in
the cancellation of the flights. Mr Bhasin says that the state of
affairs obtaining is causing a huge loss of revenue to the plaintiff
which is already facing a grave financial crunch. It is his say that
this may ultimately impact the members of the defendant union.
I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. I am of the
opinion the plaintiff has been able to set up a prima facie case at
this stage. In view of this extraordinary circumstance to which
reference has been made, this is a fit case where interim injunction
ought to be granted as prayed for by the plaintiff as a refusal of
injunction could effect a large number of passengers. The balance
of convenience is presently in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly,
the defendants are restrained from continuing with their flash strike
which reportedly they have commenced from 25.05.2010, and
furthermore are injuncted from resorting to the proposed strike to
be held with effect from 31.05.2010 at IGI Airport, Terminal I and
II. The defendants are also restrained from holding a dharna or
demonstration at the Safdarjung Airport, within a radius of 100
meters. The defendants shall also not, in any manner whatsoever,
intimidate or obstruct ingress and egress to either
Safdarjung Airport, IGI Airport, Terminal I and II or any of the
head office or regional office or even the branch offices and
extension counters of the plaintiff of either the employees of the
plaintiff or any passengers of the airline operated by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff shall comply with the provisions of Order 39
Rule 3 of the CPC within five days.
..."
4. Counsel for the defendants submits that present suit is not maintainable,
as the defendants did not carry out nor they will carry out any strike,
much less any disruption, prevention, interference at the office of the
plaintiff. Both the parties agree that present be decreed in terms of
interim order passed on 26.05.2010.
5. Accordingly, the interim order passed on 26.05.2010 is confirmed and suit
is decreed in terms of the interim order dated 26.5.2010.
6. The suit [CS(OS) 1089/2010] and the application [IA.7396/2010] are
disposed of in above terms.
G.S.SISTANI,J
JANUARY 13, 2012
ssn
