Kerala High Court Restrains 5 BPCL Trade Unions From Participating In Upcoming Nationwide Strike On March 28, 29
The Kerala High Court on Friday restrained five trade unions in the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Kochi, from participating in the nationwide strike called by a joint forum of trade unions which has been scheduled to take place on March 28 and 29.Apart from issuing an interim order, Justice Amit Rawal also issued notice to the respondents in the matter before admitting it....
The Kerala High Court on Friday restrained five trade unions in the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Kochi, from participating in the nationwide strike called by a joint forum of trade unions which has been scheduled to take place on March 28 and 29.
Apart from issuing an interim order, Justice Amit Rawal also issued notice to the respondents in the matter before admitting it.
"The apprehension expressed by the petitioner cannot go unnoticed from the notice of this Court while exercising the power of judicial review as there is likelihood that all the Unions who had already issued a notice may despite having been notified by the conciliation officer, of the provisions referred to above, may not go on a strike, which would hamper and impede the smooth functioning and working of the petitioner."
Respondents are the Trade Unions representing the workmen employed/engaged in the petitioner's Refinery at Ambalamugal and have issued strike notices informing that they are going on strike from 7.00 A.M on 28.3.2022 to 7.00 A.M on 30.3.2022 in support of the decision of the National Convention of Workers, organized jointly by the Central Trade Unions and Independent National Federations/Associations held at Jantar-Mantar, New Delhi on 11.11.2021, against the various issues related to decisions made by the Government of India.
The petitioner approached the Court seeking an interim order restraining the respondents from resorting to strike on the said dates or any other day in contravention of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.
Advocates P. Benny Thomas, D. Prem Kamath, Tom Thomas, Abel Tom Benny, Jyotish Krishna and Jaikrishnan M Pisharodi submitted on behalf of the BPCL that on receipt of the strike notices, the General Manager of the petitioner also received a conciliation proceeding. It was argued that as per Section 22, strikes and lock-outs in respect of a public utility service are prohibited during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings.
They contended that since BPCL is a public utility service, the functioning of its various units would be seriously impacted by the strike. It was asserted that although in all the conciliation notices, Section 22(1), 22(2) and 33 have been referred, the trade unions would not adhere to such direction. Therefore, the petitioner prayed that the Court invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction.
The Judge noted that in a similar circumstance, when the call for strike was given in 2020 and 2021, it had interdicted such notices.
Further, it observed that from a perusal of Section 22, it was evident that in case of pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer, which are concededly pending in view of the strike notices and the conciliation officer has already issued notices, there has to be a provision of a strike.
Considering all these circumstances, the Court issued the interim direction restraining the respondents from going on strike as per their call given in the strike notices from 7.00 A.M on 28.3.2022 to 7.00 A.M on 30.3.2022.
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Cochin Refineries Employee's Association & Ors.