Bombay HC Prevents BPCL Employees From Going On Strike Under Industrial Disputes Act As Conciliation Proceedings Are Pending [Read Order]

Division bench of Justice KK Tated and Justice NR Borkar were hearing a writ petition filed by BPCL after being served separate strike notices by trade unions representing workmen in the refinery and for the workmen in marketing side, dated August 19, 2020 informing the petitioner company that they have decided to go on strike from 7:45 am on September 7 to 7:45 am on September 9 and from 6 am on September 7 to 6 am on September 9.

On receipt of strike notices, BPCL made the request to initiate the conciliation proceedings and pursuant to it, the dispute was admitted in conciliation. In the conciliation proceedings held on August 28 the conciliation officer advised respective unions not to proceed on strike on September 7 and September 8. However, the respondents did not withdraw the said strike notices.

Advocate RS Pai appeared on behalf of BPCL and submitted that the respondent unions represent a large section of employees in the workmen category in the refinery of the petitioner and any strike will adversely affect the operation in the refinery. He further submitted that the service conditions of the employees employed in the refinery of the petitioner are governed by the terms and conditions in the settlement respectively dated May 31 and January 9, 2014. Thus, the strike notices given by the respondents are in violation of the terms of the said settlement.

Moreover, the respondent unions have threatened to proceed on illegal and unjustified strike during the pendency of conciliation proceeding in respect of strike notices in violation of the provisions of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the proposed strike by Respondent Nos.1 to 5 thus needs to be declared as illegal and unjustified and they need to be injuncted from proceeding on the strike, Pai argued.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Sanjay Singhavi appeared on behalf of the respondent unions and submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable as there is alternate remedy to proceed against the employees who resort to illegal strike such as by prosecuting them under Section 26 of the Act. He contended that Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act creates no obligation in favour of the petitioner which can be enforced by way of Writ Petition.

Sr Adv Singhavi relied upon the judgment of the High Court reported in 2001, in the matter of Bharat Petroleum corporation vs. Petroleum Employees Union, wherein it was held that the obligations of workmen or Trade Union contemplated by section 22 are obligations in rem, enforceable by the society at large.

Finally the bench observed-

"We have considered the submissions. Suffice it to say that similar contentions which are sought to be raised on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 were raised before this Court in the Judgment reported in 2011 (III) CLR 187 and in 2001 (III) CLR 806 between the very same parties and this Court repelled the said contentions.

Admittedly, conciliation proceedings are pending. Section 22 of the Act prohibits going on strike by Union/employees during the pendency of conciliation proceedings."

Thus, the Court granted interim relief to BPCL and directed the respondent unions and their members not to go on strike or indulge in any kind of abstention from work. Petitioners were asked to communicate this order to all nearby police stations and the hearing was expedited.

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]