Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Satate Road Transport ... vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 9 March, 2021
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
C/AO/16/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 16 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 16 of 2020
==========================================================
GUJARAT SATATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS FEDERATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VYOMA K JHAVERI(6386) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AK CLERK(235) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 09/03/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri Gautam Joshi appearing with
learned Advocate Ms. Vyoma K. Jhaveri for the Appellant - Gujarat State Road
Transport Corporation [Original Plaintiff] and learned Advocat Mr. A.K.Clerk
for Respondent No.1 - Gujarat State Road Transport Workers' Federation,
Respondent No. 2 - Gujarat State S.T. Karmchari Maha Mandal and
Respondent No.3 - Gujarat S.T. Mazdur Mahasanjh [Original Defendants] at
length through video conference on 1.3.2021.
2. At the request made by learned Advocates for both the sides, the matter
is taken up for final hearing.
3. The Appellant - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [Original
Plaintiff] has filed the present Appeal from Order along with Civil Application
for Stay, under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being
aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 9the September 2019 passed
C/AO/16/2020 ORDER
below Exhibit 6/7 [Notice of Motion], by the learned Chamber Judge, Court
No.23, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 425 of 2017, whereby
the learned Chamber Judge has rejected the Notice of Motion (Exh. 6/7) filed
by the Appellant / Original Plaintiff.
4. The facts in nutshell are that the Appellant - Gujarat State Road
Transport Corporation [Original Plaintiff] has filed the suit being Civil Suit No.
425 of 2017 as well as injunction Application before the City Civil Court at
Ahmedabad against the present Respondents [Original Defendants] with the
pleadings that the Plaintiff has given permission to all the Defendants with a
condition that they will not put any obstruction in the business of the Plaintiff
and will not go on strike against the Plaintiff. After approaching the
Defendants so many times, the Defendants have made their demand and arrived
at a settlement on 25.8.2010 which is sanctioned by the Government of Gujarat
on 4.9.2010, and on the basis of sanction, Application No. 178 of 2011 was
filed before the Industrial Tribunal which was allowed on 24.10.2016 and
necessary award was passed as per the settlement. Further, the Defendants
have given several representations and pressurized the Plaintiff that they will
go on mass casual leave from 15.3.2017 to 17.3.2017. Hence the Plaintiff has
filed Suit for declaration and thereby prayed for ad interim injunction against
the Defendants that they be restrained from creating any obstacle / hurdle in
the smooth functioning of the business of the Plaintiff as well as restraining the
Defendants from going on strike. It was pleaded in the Suit that on account of
going on mass casual leave from midnight of 15.3.2017 to 17.3.2017 as well as
the call of Defendants for chakkajam the final examination of students of 10th
and 12th standard, about to be commenced by the Gujarat Secondary & Higher
Secondary Education Board with effect from 15.3.2017 is likely to suffer. It is
further pleaded that the Plaintiff by way of filing the Suit is not only trying to
throttle the legitimate demands of the defendants but also misguiding this Court
and therefore the Plaintiff has prayed that the injunction application filed on
behalf of the Plaintiff may be rejected.
C/AO/16/2020 ORDER
5. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Gautam Joshi appearing with with
learned Advocate Ms. Vyoma Jhaveri for the Appellant has vehemently argued
that nobody has right to proceed on strike and the cause of action arose only for
three days, and therefore, when the cause does not survive, there is no necessity
of any permanent injunction. However, on 15.3.2017 there was a settlement
and therefore the Suit is required to be withdrawn. It is nothing but the
harassment to the Appellant. Therefore the learned trial Court has committed
mistake in rejecting the Notice of Motion. It is submitted that the Period of
apprehension to proceed on strike was from 15.3.2017 to 17.3.2017 which had
already gone, and therefore, there is no necessity of exercising the discretion.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. A.K.Clerk for the Respondent has
opposed the stand taken by the Appellant and submitted that the learned Trial
Court has rightly disallowed the Notice of Motion. Even on that date no strike
was in existence. On the contrary, the strike was suspended. Further there was
a settlement on 15.3.017 and the Suit was filed on 15.3.2017. Further, it was
also argued that another Suit Civil Suit was filed prior to the present Civil Suit.
Therefore, there was no necessity to file the present Suit. The prior Suit came
to be withdrawn. Learned Advocate Mr. Clerk has submitted that therefore
also there is no necessity to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial
Court.
7. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the
parties, pursuant to the order passed by the Trial Court, wherein the leanred
Trial Court has rightly observed that the strike is not the right of any person by
placing reliance in the judgment in case of T.K.Rangarajan v. Government
of T.N. And Ors. Reported in (2003) SCC 581 wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed as under:
"(A) There is no fundamental right to go on strike:
12. Law on this subject is well settled and it has been repeatedly held
C/AO/16/2020 ORDER
by this Court that the employees have no fundamental right to resort to
strike. In Kameshwar Prasad and others v. State of Bihar and another
(1962) Suppl. 3 SCR 369 this Court (C.B.) held that the rule in so far as
it prohibited strikes was valid since there is no fundamental right to
resort to strike.
13. *****
14. In Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal V. Union of India and Another [(2003)
2 SCC 45], the Court (C.B) held that lawyers have no right to go on
strike or give a call for boycott and even they cannot go on a token
strike. The Court has specifically observed that for just or unjust cause,
strike cannot be justified in the present day situation. Take strike in any
field, it can be easily realised that the weapon does more harm than any
justice. Sufferer is the society public at large.
15. *****
16. *****
(B) There is no legal / statutory right to go on strike
17. There is no statutory provision empowering the employees to go
on strike.
18. *****
(C) There is no moral or equitable justification to go on strike.
19. Apart from statutory rights, Government employees cannot claim
that they can take the society at ransom by going on strike. Even if there
is injustice to some extent, as presumed by such employees, in a
democratic welfare State, they have to resort to the machinery provided
under different statutory provisions for redressal of their grievances.
Strike as a weapon is mostly misused which results in chaos and total
maladministration. Strike affects the society as whole and particularly
when two lakh employees go on strike enmasse, the entire
administration comes to a grinding halt. In the case of strike by a
teacher, entire educational system suffers; many students are prevented
from appearing in their exams which ultimately affect their whole
career. In case of strike by Doctors, innocent patients suffer; in c ase of
strike by employees of transport services, entire movement of the society
comes to a stand still, business is adversely affected and number of
persons find it difficult to attend to their work, to move from one place
to another or one city to another. On occasions, public properties are
destroyed or damaged and finally this creates bitterness among public
C/AO/16/2020 ORDER
against those who are on strike."
8. In the present case it is an undisputed fact that earlier the Suit was filed
by the Appellant. Further, in the present case, the question was about strike
between the period 15.3.2017 and 17.3.2017 and in fact the same was not in
existence. Further, it is and undisputed fact that the settlement was arrived that
the Respondents will not proceed on strike, and therefore, the learned Trial
Judge has rightly observed that before the Plaintiff is allowed to have a
permanent injunction in his favour he has to prove his entitlement for same by
way of leading of evidence, since the time of filing of the Suit as well as
injunction application was confined to upcoming strike w.e.f. 15.3.2017 to
17.3.2017 which period has already passed away.
9. Therefore, the court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the
order passed by the learned Trial Court and no interference is called for by this
Court. The present Appeal from Order with Civil Application deserves to be
dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. The order dated 9th September
2019 passed below Exhibit 6/7 [Notice of Motion], by the learned Chamber
Judge, Court No.23, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 425 of
2017 is hereby confirmed.
(A. C. JOSHI,J)
J.N.W
