Delhi High Court
All India Institute Of Medical ... vs Aiims Nurses Union on 24 February, 2021
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:26.02.2021
22:51:02
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24th February, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 10445/2020 & CM APPLs. 33046/2020 & 7449/2021
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V. Shashank Kumar, Advocate.
versus
AIIMS NURSES UNION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Santhosh Krishnan & Mr. Sayid
Marzook, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present petition was filed by the All India Institute Of Medical
Sciences (AIIMS) against the AIIMS Nurses Union challenging the notice
issued by the Union for going on an indefinite strike w.e.f. 16th December,
2020. The Nurses Union had raised various demands and issues with the
Petitioner which, according to it, were not addressed. Hence, the notice for
a strike.
3. In the present petition, the ld. Single Judge had the occasion to
consider the matter on 15th December, 2020 and after hearing ld. counsel
for the Petitioner, the Court had directed that the Respondent would not go
on strike till further orders. The extract of the said order reads:-
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
apart from the strike being in violation of Section 22 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, it is also in violation of the
judgment dated 20.05.2002 passed by this Court in
Court on its own Motion v. All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, 2002 (64) DRJ 418 wherein, keeping
in view the special circumstances of the petitioner as an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.02.2021 20:06
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:26.02.2021
22:51:02
institution and the sensitive nature of such super
speciality referral hospital requiring uninterrupted and
smooth functioning of each and every sphere of activity,
it was inter-alia directed that no employee or staff or
faculty member shall cease work for any reason
whatsoever.
4. Keeping in view the submissions made and the
assurance given by the petitioner that the grievance of
the respondent is being considered and will be duly
considered in an appropriate manner, the respondent is
restrained from continuing with the strike till further
order."
4. Since then, the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Nurses
Union. The submission of Mr. Santosh Krishnan, appearing for the Nurses'
Union is three fold:-
(i) That the maintainability of the writ petition is under doubt as no
writ ought to be entertained against a trade union;
(ii) That the matter is already pending before the Conciliation
Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID" Act) and
the said proceedings have been adjourned awaiting further
orders of this writ petition. The said conciliation proceedings
ought to continue;
(iii) No coercive measures ought to be taken by AIIMS against the
nurses due to the one day strike.
5. He further points out that in W.P.(C) 6727/2018 titled Delhi Metro
Rail Corporation Ltd Vs. General Secretary (Staff Council) & Ors, initially
an order was granted restraining the Union from going on strike. Finally,
however, the Court had passed an order permitting the Union to avail its
remedies.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.02.2021 20:06
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:26.02.2021
22:51:02
6. On behalf of AIIMS, it is submitted that the merits of the grievances
raised by Nurses has not been dealt with in the writ petition. The only relief
which AIIMS is seeking is that the strike should not be given effect to
considering the public nature of the function performed by AIIMS as also
the nurses working therein. In so far as the Conciliation proceeding is
concerned, the counsel for the AIIMS submits that he had no objection, if
the conciliation proceedings go on.
7. Heard ld. counsels for the parties. In DMRC Ltd (supra), the ld.
Single Judge had, initially vide order dated 28th January 2019 restrained the
DMRC workers from going on strike. The operative portion of the said order
reads:
"15. Considering the fact that the petitioner is
running a public utility service which caters to
around 25 Lakhs citizens of Delhi as a daily basis
who come largely from the middle income group
and the fact that they would be greatly
inconvenienced if the respondents go on strike, as
also the fact that, prima facie, the action of the
respondents does not appear to be justified or
legal since sufficient notice has not been given to
the petitioner and the conciliation proceedings are
still in progress, I am inclined to grant ad-interim
relief as sought in the application. Accordingly,
the respondents are restrained from going on
strike on 30.06.2018 or till further orders in the
matter."
8. The above writ petition was finally disposed of with the following
directions:
"3. Today, the respondent nos.3, 5 and 9 appear in
person, while the respondent nos.1, 2, 4, 6 to 8 and
10 are represented by their respective counsel.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.02.2021 20:06
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:26.02.2021
22:51:02
They all state in unison that the aforesaid notices
issued by them may be treated as withdrawn. They
further assure the Court that they will not resort to
any strike or threaten to go on strike any strike
without following the procedure as prescribed
under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The respondents will remain bound by their
aforesaid statement.
4. In view of the specific statement by the
respondents to withdraw the impugned notices and
the further assurance given by them not to resort
to any strike in contravention of the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, learned senior counsel
for the petitioner does not press the present
petition any further. The same is accordingly
disposed of as infructuous along with the pending
application."
9. In the case of DMRC the services were held to be 'public utility
services'. In the present case it is the AIIMS Nurses' Union. There can be no
doubt that healthworkers and nurses in general including nurses working at
AIIMS have rendered yeoman's service to society and patients, especially
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their service has been selfless and prone
to enormous risk for their own self and their families. Their necessity during
the pandemic was indispensable. The order restraining them from going on
strike is in fact a recognition of their importance to the patients and to the
working of the hospital. In view of the role that nurses play, their
grievances, if any, ought to be considered and redressed in a timely and
expedient manner. The Nurses have some long pending grievances. Both
sides ought to be reasonable and not take extreme positions while attempting
redressal. The interim order has already restrained the Nurses' Union from
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.02.2021 20:06
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:26.02.2021
22:51:02
going on a strike. The matter is now pending before the Conciliator under
the ID Act, the petition is disposed off with the following directions:
i. The conciliation proceedings shall go on under the ID Act and
shall be decided expeditiously and in any case within a period
of three months from today.
ii. The AIIMS Nurses Union assures this Court that they will not
resort to a strike without following the procedure as prescribed
under the ID Act. The Union, all its members and nurses shall
be bound by this statement.
iii. Subject to the said assurance given above being honoured by
the Nurses Union, it is directed that the AIIMS shall not take
coercive steps against the Petitioner for the Nurses having gone
on strike under the impugned notice dated 16th December,
2020.
10. Once the conciliation proceedings conclude, if there is no resolution,
both parties are left to avail of their remedies in accordance with law. The
question of maintainability, raised, is left open to be gone into in an
appropriate case.
11. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications are
also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 24, 2021
mw/RC
Corrected and released on 26th February, 2021
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.02.2021 20:06
