Madras High Court
M/S.Manapparai Maris Spinners ... vs M/S.Maris Spinners Limited on 1 December, 2021
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
M/s.Manapparai Maris Spinners Mill Employees' Union,
Registration No.1288/TRI,
Represented by its General Secretary,
A.Balasubramani,
Having its Registered Office at
North Edayapatti,
Puthanatham Post,
Manapparai Taluk,
Tiruchirappalli District - 621 310. ... Appellant/Appellant/Defendant
Vs.
M/s.Maris Spinners Limited,
Unite II, Represented by its General Manager,
Having its Mill Premises at
Kulithalai Road,
Sevalur Village,
Manapparrai Taluk,
Tiruchirappalli District. ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 26.08.2010 passed in
A.S.No.85 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court,
Tiruchirappalli, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.06.2009
passed in O.S.No.24 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate
Court, Tiruchirappalli.
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
For Appellant : Mr.M.Subash Babu
For Respondent : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.G.Mohankumar
JUDGMENT
The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.24 of 2005
by the III Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli and in A.S.No.85 of
2010 by the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, are being challenged in
the present Second Appeal.
2. The respondent / plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.24 of 2005,
on the file of the trial Court for the relief of permanent injunction, wherein,
the present appellant has been shown as defendant.
3. In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiff is the Management of
Manapparai Maris Spinners Limited, Manapparai and on 16.11.2004, there
was a dispute between one of the employee by name Velusamy and the
Supervisor in respect of allocating overtime duty to a co-employee by name
Ayyakannu, due to which, disciplinary action was initiated and the erring
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
employees were placed under suspension and the employees of the plaintiff
formed a trade union and registered the same in November, 2004 and
indulged in strike, agitation and dharna and they have also restrained the
local employees from attending the duty. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for
permanent injunction restraining the defendant and its men from indulging
in agitation activities within a radius of 300 meters from the plaintiff Mill
premises.
4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendant, it is
averred that the Management has treated the employees as cattles and
bonded labourers and even the women employees were not treated humanly
and the plaintiff has placed the Vice-President of the union M.Velusamy,
who has given voice in support of the employees, under suspension. The
defendant agreed to the advices of the Conciliation Officer, but the
Management has refused to change its stand. The defendant's Union never
committed any unlawful act and the union is voicing its grievances only in a
legal and peaceful manner, after intimating to the appropriate authorities, but
the plaintiff has refused permission even to hoist the union flag infront of
the Mill. The suit claim was barred by Industrial Disputes Act and Trade
Unions Act and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, one Sekar was
examined as P.W.1 and and Exs.A1 to A20 were marked. On the side of the
defendant, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.13 were
marked.
6. On the basis of the rival pleadings on either side, the trial Court,
after framing necessary issues and after evaluating both the oral and
documentary evidence, has decreed the suit in favour of the respondent /
plaintiff by granting a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the
plaintiff Management by injuncting the defendant-trade union from holding
any violent activities during Agitation and Dharna and had directed the
workmen to raise slogan and objections beyond 300 meters away from the
factory premises.
7. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court,
the defendant as appellant, had filed an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.85 of 2010
stating that the suit claim is barred by Industrial Disputes Act and Trade
Union Act and by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the civil
Court lacks jurisdiction. Further, it is stated that the subsequent events also
have to be considered and the members of the defendant were acquitted in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
the criminal case foisted at the behest of the plaintiff. The first appellate
Court, after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available
on record, has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court. The first Appellate Court allowed the additional
documents filed on the side of the appellant/defendant, which were marked
as Ex.B.14 and Ex.B.15.
8. Challenging the said concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by
the Courts below, the present second appeal has been preferred at the
instance of the defendant as appellant.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel
for the respondent and also perused the records carefully.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / defendant would
submit that no proper issues were framed for consideration and there is
absence of any jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry on the locality of strike
which resulted in miscarriage of justice and the civil Court has got no
jurisdiction which claim was also not pressed by the learned counsel for the
appellant. Further, the prayer is barred under the provisions of the Specific
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
Relief Act and the erroneous finding of the suit is to be set aside stating that
there is no cause of action arises for granting any such relief, when the
Management has failed to prove by let in any evidence on the baseless and
malicious averments in the suit. He further submitted that the first Appellate
Court has not considered the documentary and oral evidences of the Trade
Union and has simply brush aside the same, which is erroneous. The
evidence of the Inspector of Police, Manapparai Police Station, who was
examined as D.W.3 and the general diary marked as Ex.B.14 which was
marked at the instance of the appellant, has a vital role on the subject matter
and the same has not at all been referred by the Courts below. Further, no
reasons have been stated while confirming the judgment and decree of the
trial Court by the first Appellate Court.
11. Further, the subsequent events had made the suit as infructuous
and the same has to be dismissed and the permanent injunction granted has
resulted in totally taking away the democratic rights enshrined in the
Constitution of India, by which, the Trade Unions are protected, wherein,
they were allowed to demonstrate peacefully by holding Dharna. The Courts
below have not considered the fact that there is a nomenclature maintained
during the pendency of the suit which would show that they are not in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
habit of violating the Labour Laws and the respondent/plaintiff had
unilaterally entered into a five year wage settlement, dated 23.06.1999 with
the handpicked apprentices, as it is binding all the apprentices has to be
considered and this point need not be considered which is not the subject
matter of the issue on hand. The criminal case have been let out by no
evidence to prove that the case was also not considered by the Courts below.
The defendant raised an Industrial Dispute demanding wage revision and
improvement on the working conditions before the Assistant Commissioner
of Labour (Conciliation), Tiruchirappalli, wherein, conciliation proceedings
were initiated and inspite of the same, the Management has not accepted the
claim made by the defendant-Trade Union, the Government has declined to
refer the Industrial Dispute to the Labour Court on various technical
grounds in G.D(D).No.472, dated 12.08.2009. He further submitted that
there was no action taken against them by the Government and the
Management had influence and protected their democratic rights and prayed
for allowing the Second Appeal.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the
following judgments:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
(i) The Central Bank of India Vs. central Bank Officers Association
(Gujarat) reported in 1997 (0) LIC 3421.
(ii) The Management Vs. The President Officer, Labour Court,
Vellore and another reported in CDJ 2005 MHC 1747.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff would
submit that both the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit and prayed
for dismissal of the Second Appeal.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the
following Judgments:-
(i) In Railway Board, New Delhi and another Vs. Niranjan Singh
reported in AIR 1969 SC 966 (Volume 56 C 178), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court opined thus:-
"13.It is true that the freedoms guaranteed under our
Constitution are very valuable freedoms and this Court would
resist abridging the ambit of those freedoms except to the
extent permitted by the Constitution. The fact that the citizens
of this country have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble
peaceably and freedom to form associations or unions does
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
not mean that they can exercise those freedoms in whatever
place they please. The exercise of those freedoms will come to
an end as soon as the right of someone else to hold his
property intervenes. Such a limitation is inherent in the
exercise of those rights. The validity of that limitation is not
to be judged by the tests prescribed by Sub-Articles (2) and
(3) of Article 19. In other words the contents of the freedoms
guaranteed under Clauses (a), (b) and (c), the only freedoms
with which we are concerned in this appeal, do not include
the right to exercise them in the properties in his contentions
then a citizen of this Country in the exercise of his right under
Clauses (d) and (e) of Article 19(1) could move about freely
in a public office or even reside there unless there exists some
law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of those
rights."
(ii) The Enfield India Limited rep. by its Executive Director reported
in 1994 (2) LW 476.
(iii) The Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Food
Corporation of India and others reported in 2001 (2) CTC 755.
(iv) The unreported Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.18723 of 2003
[Fenner (India) Limited Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Karur and
others], this Court has held as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
"32. By placing material evidence, the petitioner
has satisfied this Court for invoking extraordinary
remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The only question to be considered at this length of time
is whether the members of the union, respondents 4 to
11, have to be kept away at a distance of 300 meters
from the factory premises to hold demonstrations,
slogans or conduct any of the lawful activities as per the
Trade Unions Act and other labour laws, permanently,
by issuance of a Mandamus. The contention that if they
have to stay away at a distance of 300 meters, and even
their voice would not be heard by the Management
deserves to be considered and having regard to the
rights granted under the Industrial Laws to the
workmen, and the rival contentions, this Court is of the
view that the Mandamus sought for has to be granted,
subject to a restriction of 200 meters from the factory
premises, to hold dharna, demonstration etc.
33. Hence, there shall be a direction to the
respondents 1 to 3, to provide police protection to the
petitioner's industry to run peacefully with its staff and
willing workers and the respondents unions 4 to 11
respectively, their members shall hold demonstrations,
slogans or conduct any of the lawful activities, as per the
Trade Unions Act and other Industrial Laws, 200 meters
away from the petitioner's factory premises."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
15. On a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the
General Manager of M/s.Manapparai Maris Spinners Limited has filed a suit
for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men and agent etc.,
from interfering with the Management of the institution and functioning of
the plaintiff in respect of the suit property by holding demonstration,
agitation and strike within a radius of 300 metres from its mill premises or
preventing the contract workers and Directors, Administrative staffs,
customers and supervisors to have ingress to or egress out of the mill in any
manner whatsoever. The plaintiff institution was established in the year 1996
and the mill employees nearing 300 employees which includes permanent,
scheme trainees, casual, contract employees and staffs etc. The defendant's
union was registered in October 2004 and its registration was not
communicated to the Management. The plaintiff-Management came to know
the registration of the Trade Union only in November 2004, after agitation
and strike organised by the members of the union. According to the plaintiff,
the shift supervisor asked one Ayyakannu to do overtime work, but he
refused to do so stating that he was suffering from illness. Due to which,
Velusamy and office bearer of the Trade Union trespassed into the
supervisor room and threatened him that Ayyakannu will not do overtime
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
work. When it was questioned by the shift supervisor, other employees
joined with them and threatened the shift supervisor and later it has become
a reason for strike, agitation, demonstration etc. The Management issued a
memo for disobeying the direction of the shift supervisor and placed him
under suspension and it was also questioned by the workmen asking the
management to reinstate him into service and indulge in agitation, strike,
demonstration etc.
16. The contention of the defendant is that the Management treated
the workmen as bonded labourers and they were compelled to do work
without allowing them to go home and the maternity leave was not granted
to the female workmen and also directed the women employees to work
during night shifts, wherein law prohibits the working women not to employ
them during night shifts and the management has not regularised the
services of the workmen, who have worked for more than the statutory
period, hence they have formed a trade union and resisted the same. The
Management was not happy with the formation of Trade Union and they
treated one Ayyakannu-the shift supervisor to stand outside the work place
without giving food or allowing him to take rest and also issued a charge
sheet against him and other 18 employees and dismissed them from service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
arbitrarily without holding an enquiry and the Industrial Dispute raised by
them is pending before the Labour Court and the above act of the
Management induced the workers to indulge in strike, agitation, dharna etc.,
and that though the agitation and demonstration is peaceful, the
Management had called the Police and prevented the workers from agitating
lawfully and the suit is barred under Section 18 of the Trade Union Act,
which was later on, the learned counsel for the appellant has not insisted on
the said point to be determined by this Court.
17. It is further seen that before the first Appellate Court, the
defendant filed an application in I.A.No.185 of 2010 to receive additional
documents. The additional document sought to be received in evidence is
the copy of the Judgment rendered by the criminal Court and the copy of
agreement entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The said criminal case has been ended in acquittal for the offences under
Sections 147, 294(b), 341 and 427 I.P.C. It is only due to the lack of
evidence and giving the benefit of doubt and this is not accepted by the first
Appellate Court stating that these documents need not be considered,
however, marked the same as Exs.B.14 and B.15. Hence, whether the
peaceful demonstrations are legal or not to be decided?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
18. The first Appellate Court, after considering the averments made in
the appeal, had come to the conclusion that the strike was not a short one
which has prolonged to a period of three months and the said demonstration
and strike cannot be treated as peaceful and lawful and had considered the
submissions of the plaintiff's Management and had granted an order of
permanent injunction restraining the defendant, office bearers of the
workmen attached to the Trade Union from indulging in agitation and
demonstration within the radius of 300 meters of the plaintiff's Mill
premises. Section 18 of the Trade Union Act was also considered by the first
Appellate Court and come to the conclusion that the agitations were violent
and prevented the other staffs from going for their employment. Though
Section 18 of the Trade Union Act prohibit civil suit or other proceedings
against any registered Trade Union, office bearer or in respect of any act in
contemplation or furtherance of trade dispute, the suit is maintainable as the
employees strike turns violent during agitation and dharna and that point
was made against the defendant.
19. It is relevant to extract Sections 14 and 41 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1973, which reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
"14.Contracts not specifically enforceable.—The following
contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:—
(a) where a party to the contract has obtained substituted
performance of contract in accordance with the provisions of section
20;
(b) a contract, the performance of which involves the
performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise;
(c) a contract which is so dependent on the personal
qualifications of the parties that the court cannot enforce specific
performance of its material terms; and
(d) a contract which is in its nature determinable.
41. Injunction when refused.— An injunction cannot be
granted—
(a) to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial
proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the
injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a
multiplicity of proceedings;
(b) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any
proceeding in a court not sub-ordinate to that from which the
injunction is sought;
(c) to restrain any person from applying to any legislative
body;
(d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any
proceeding in a criminal matter;
(e) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of
which would not be specifically enforced;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
(f) to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is
not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance;
(g) to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has
acquiesced;
(h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by
any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust;
1 [(ha) if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any
infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of
relevant facility related thereto or services being the subject matter of
such project.]
(i) when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been
such as to disentitle him to be the assistance of the court; (j) when the
plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. 42. Injunction to
perform negative agreement."
20. Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 says that where the
contracts cannot be specifically enforceable. Here is the case where the
Court has ordered permanent injunction against the employees and
supervised by the Management and the parties to the said contract is not
permitted to do certain Acts which would be detrimental to the Management.
21. Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, has got nothing to do
with the case on hand, wherein the Courts below have granted injunction
wherein they have not prevented the Trade Union from holding dharna, but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
only restricted their dharna to a place where the ingress and egress of the
other staff members or the finished products of the factory not to be
prevented.
22. Section 37 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reads as follows:-
"37.Protection of action taken under the Act.- No
suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against
any person for anything which is in good faith done or
intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rule
made thereunder."
23. There is no evidence provided by the Trade Union that they have
done the acts, which are in good faith and they are intended to be done in
pursuance of this Act or any rules was not established. As the said persons
have indulged in untoward actions, this Court has rightly proceeded further.
24. It is seen that when there are agitations which has turned violent,
which has been accepted by evidence that there was some untoward incident
happened during the strike, the civil Courts can interfere with the same and
prevent them from holding dharna within the certain limits of the factory
premises. The Management is entitled to get such an order of injunction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
restraining the workmen from indulging in demonstration or holding Dharna
within a particular radius from the mill premises.
25. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed
out that this Court has categorically held that 300 meters from the appellant
factory premises is reasonable.
26. From the above findings, it is clear that the workers had never
been prevented from raising slogan or objection beyond the radius of 300
meters of the factory premises. The Management had taken action only on
the erring workmen who had prevented the workman from attending work
and the Mill functions have to be looked into and there cannot be any
agitation which will affect the running of the Mill in a peaceful manner.
27. As the Courts below have rightly granted a decree of permanent
injunction restraining them from holding any agitation within a radius of
300 meters alone has to be looked into. When the Trade Union members
have right to call for a legal strike or agitation in a lawful manner, they
cannot have any unlawful activities which are violent. When they can agitate
on a lawful manner to put pressure on the Management from meeing out the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
legal demand. That being the case, the agitating workmen have to be
prevented from doing unlawful activities. If the other workmen, who are not
willing to participate in the strike and they wanted to attend with their work,
they cannot be prevented by the other workmen, who are holding dharna and
cannot prevent the customers or vehicles carrying the workmen or materials
to be taken inside the Mill premises. Hence, when the agitation has turned
violent in the previous occasion which is the cause of action for the suit, the
trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has rightly come to the
conclusion that they can be prevented by an order of permanent injunction
not to hold agitation within a radius of 300 meters.
28. Only regarding the issue of distance (300 meters) to be decided
and determined by the Courts below as to whether the same would not be
appropriate, as the demonstration will not have any impact on their cause of
agitation and on going through the photographs and other materials
available on record, it could be seen that immediately after the Mill, there is
an open space and there is a road available and in front of the Mill that is
Manapparai-Kulithalai Road, private lands are available next to the Mill and
there is a Government land at South East corner and a bridge is also seen.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
29. Hence, this Court is of the view that when the said workers have
been allowed to hold dharna in a peaceful manner, it could be a reasonable
radius of distance to allow them for holding the dharna and accordingly, this
Court is inclined to reduce the distance and allow the said demonstration to
be held beyond 200 meters from the main gate of the factory premises. The
appellant is at liberty to approach the concerned Police Station seeking
permission to hold dharna and it is left open to the concerned police officials
to earmark the place of dharna beyond 200 meters from the main gate of the
factory premises. In all other aspects, the Judgment and Decree passed by
the first Appellate Court remains unaltered.
30. In fine, this second appeal is allowed in part without costs and the
judgment and decree, dated 26.08.20210 passed in A.S.No.85 of 2010 by the
Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, is modified. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
01.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
ps
To
1.The Principal District Court,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The III Additional Subordinate Court,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Judgment made in
S.A(MD)No.470 of 2011
01.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
