immunities from civil proceedings.docx

8/18/2019 immunities from civil proceedings.docx

1/20

IMMUNITIES FROM CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

LABOUR LAW-I

Submitted by:

CHITRARTHA GUPTA

Submitted to:

Mr. Bharat Kumar

2!""#

SEMESTER IV

DAMODARAM SAN$IVA%%A NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSIT%

V&'a(ha)at*am

Mar+h 2!,

1


2/20

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have endeavored to attempt this project. However, it would not have been feasible

without the valuable support and guidance of Mr.Bharat umar. I would li!e to e"tend

my sincere than!s to her.

I am also highly indebted to #amodaram Sanjivayya $ational %aw &niversity %ibrary

Staff, for their patient co'operation as well as for providing necessary information ( also

for their support in completing this project.

My than!s and appreciations also go to my classmates who gave their valuable insight

and help in developing this project.

)hitrartha *upta

2


3/20

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

IMMUNITIES FROM CIVIL ACTIONS.,

LOOPHOLES IN THE SECTION/

ACTIONS COVERED UNDER THE SECTION...0

LANDMARK CASE LAWS.1

3


4/20

I$+-#&)+I-$:

Immunities from civil proceedings are mentioned in section / which states that

4


5/20

01 $o suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any )ivil )ourt against any

registered +rade &nion or any 2office'bearer3 or member thereof in respect of any act

done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the +rade

&nion is a party on the ground only that such act induces some other person to brea! a

contract of employment, or that it is in interference with the trade, business or

employment of some other person or with the right of some other person to dispose of his

capital or of his labour as he wills.

041 5 registered +rade &nion shall not be liable in any suit or other legal proceeding in

any )ivil )ourt in respect of any tortious act done in contemplation or furtherance of a

trade dispute by an agent of the +rade &nion if it is proved that such person acted without

the !nowledge of, or contrary to e"press instructions given by, the e"ecutive of the +rade&nion.

678%5$5+I-$:

Immunity is provided to the registered trade union from being sued by way of civil suit

under section /. In respect of any act done in contemplation on furtherance of a trade

dispute to which a member of the trade union is a party on the ground only that such act

induces some other person to brea! a contract of employment or that it is in interferencewith the trade, business or employment of some other person or with the right of some

other person to dispose of his capital or of his labour as he wills9

IMMUNIT% FROM CIVIL ACTIONS

Since Section / of the +rade &nions 5ct, 4; is based upon 6nglish law it is useful to

note the development in the &nited ingdom. &ntil


6/20

business of employer, e.g., stri!es causing financial loss to management was actionable in

6ngland and until 4; in India.

Section = of the 6nglish +rade #isputes 5ct,


7/20

trade dispute by an agent of the +rade &nion if it is proved that such person acted without

the !nowledge of, or contrary to e"press instructions given by the e"ecutive of the +rade

&nions. +he above section does not afford immunity to the members or office'bearers of

a +rade &nion for an act of deliberate trespass. +he immunity also cannot be availed of

by them for unlawful or tortuous act1.Durther such immunity is denied if they indulge in

an illegal stri!e or gherao. Moreover, the immunities enjoyed by the union do not impose

any public duty on the part of the union.E

LOOPHOLES OF SECTION !1:

Dirst, li!e immunity from criminal conspiracy immunity from civil action is also

confined to members of the registered trade unions. Fe have already seen that such

protection was limited to /. per cent of the labour force in '4. In terms of the

; report it protected only about . per cent of the labour force.

Second, it does not afford ade@uate protection from civil liabilities. Dor, it is arguable

whether it gives9 protection and, if so, to what e"tent in e"cess of the aforementioned

Section ? of the +rade &nions 5ct. 5 suit or proceedings may not be maintainable for

number of reasons. #oes it necessarily follow that the conduct does not Efurnish ground

for civil actionE within the meaning of Section >= of the Indian 8enal )odeG

+hird. the e"pression Ein contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which a

member of the trade union is a partyE is obviously narrower than the ambit of protection

under the said Section ?. Dourth, this provision helped in the maintenance of union

funds, howsoever meagre. +he real significance is in rejecting the application of the

common law doctrines of restraint of trade and criminal conspiracy in so far as they

encroach in the field of labour management relations. +ogether with Section ?, it

provides a great impetus for, and facilitate the active participation of Eoutside leadersE in

the +rade &nion Movement.

ACTIONS COVERED B% SECTION !1

7


8/20

. 8eaceful pic!eting are protected. 8ic!eting described as Marching to and fro before

the premises of an establishment involved in a dispute, generally accompanies by the

carrying and display of a sign or banner, etc. 8ic!eting may be accompanied by a polite

re@uest as!ing wor!ers not to assist in the running of that establishment or customers not

to patronie that establishment

4. 8ic!eting ceases to be peaceful the moment it results in a private or public nuisance.

Intimidation or indulging in *herao or wrongful confinement of officerJs o the

managerial staff or other members of the public in premises of that establishment will be

unlawful.

=. 5ny show or threat of violence or any other unlawful threat li!ely to create fear in the

mind of a reasonable man will render pic!eting unlawful. 8ic!ets cannot force people to

listen to them. +hey cannot obstruct the passage of customers goods vehicles etc. +hus

the right to pic!et is closely limited by the e@ual right of others to go about their lawful

affairs free form obstruction molestation or intimidation.

CASE LAWS

Dr. P.H. Da*&34 A*5 A*r. 6' K.N. Kr&'h*a I73r

D5)+S:

8


9/20

+he plaintiff Shri . $. rishna Iyer is the Managing #irector of 6merald Kalley 6states

%td., which is a company owning the Meraflores 6state at $elliyampathy and the

Bedaguli 6state in arnata!a. +he defendants are the 8resident and the *eneral

Secretary, respectively, of the 6state Staff &nion of South India which we shall refer to as

the E&nion.E +he &nion represents the staff of the various estates in South India. 5bout


10/20

I*5&a* E8)r3'' V T.M Na9ara:a*

D5)+S:

+he #elhi 6stablishment of the plaintiff company publishes Indian 6"press, Cansatta and

Dinancial 6"press dailies from its premises situated at Bahadurshah Nafar Marg, $ew

#elhi where the printing units as well as the editorial and administrative offices are

situated. Since >th -ctober, /?. it is alleged by the plaintiff, a small number of

employees led by an outsider Mr.+.M $agarajan have staged a stri!e and have from day'

to'day physically prevented an overwhelming majority of employees from entering the

premises and attending to their duties. +he methods adopted to prevent the entry of

employees included ma!ing it physically impossible for the employees to get into the

building by forming human walls, by abuses, by physical assaults, by strone'throwing

etc. It is further alleged in the plaint that the defendants along with their supporters have

positioned themselves by pitching a tent right at the entrance of the building and have

spread themselves on the steps leading to the building and on the platform or chabutra

inside the building.

ISS&6S:

+he present plaintiff, has filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction whereby

claiming a decree to restrain the defendants, their agents and supporters from pic!eting,

demonstrating and gheraoing employees of the plaintiff company and from demonstrating

within a distance of 4


11/20

C*6M6$+

Suit was maintainable and e" parte injunction thereby restraining defendants from

gherao,pic!eting was given.

Ahm35a;a5 T38t&43 R3'3ar+h A''


12/20

ISS&6:

Ouestion was whether ban! was entitled to interim injunction against its own employeesG

C*6M6$+:

+he madras High court held that an interim injunction would virtually prevent the

e"ercise of statutory rights conferred on unions to hold demonstrations and meetings

within the scope of trade unions act thereof no injunction can be provided. If they indulge

in any unlawful activities as specified in Indian penal code the immunity the union

possessing will be ta!en from them.

S&m)'


13/20

0i1 from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the free movement of plaintiffs

e"ecutives, contractors, staff, suppliers and other public from entering into and out of

plaintiffs Hebbal plant9

0ii1 from interfering or obstructing the free movement of carsLvehicles and lorries

carrying raw materials, intermediaries, end products into and of plaintiffs Hebbal plant9

0iii1 from endangering the life of persons, contractors, e"ecutives, staff of plaintiff and

property of plaintiff and allow costs of this suit.

C*6M6$+:

5 demonstration by the employees is protected under 5rticle of the )onstitution of

India provided it is peaceful and orderly. Such a demonstration is, therefore protected

even apart from Section / of the +rade &nions 5ct, 4;. Section / does not afford

immunity for an act of deliberate trespass. +he members of a trade union may resort to a

peaceful agitation by gathering together either outside the industrial establishment or

inside within the wor!ing hour. provided it is peaceful and no violence, intimidation or

molestation is involved and there is no violation of the provisions of law. 5n act in

contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute which induces breach of contract on

other employees or causes interference with trade, business or employment of some other

to dispose of his capital or labour as he wills would not be actionable, but such

inducement or interference must be by lawful means and not by means which would be

illegal or wrongful. +he display of posters within or outside the place of business is

permissible. +he wor!ers are entitled to the protection of Section / of the +rade &nions

5ct even if the stri!e is illegal under Section 4>0l1 of the Industrial #isputes 5ct.

F353rat&


14/20

In this case there was a dispute between Dilmalaya 8vt. %td., a private limited company

and the wor!ers 0represented through federation of affil iated unions1 regarding

employment, non'employment, status of employees and alleged illegal termination of

services of certain wor!ers. +he federation of unions of the concerned affiliated union

issued a letter on May =, /< addressed to various bodies and associations of cine

artists, technicians and wor!ers re@uiring them to issue instructions directing their

members not to report for shooting wor! at the studio of Dilmalaya 8vt. %td. +he net

effect of that letter was that the business of the company had come to a standstill. +he

company, therefore, filed a suit against the employees mainly for an injunction restraining

them from acting upon the directive of the federation.

ISS&6S:

5 @uestion arose whether an injunction can be issued restraining the trade union, its

members or agents from acting upon the direction issued by the union, namely, not to

report at the studioG +he Bombay High )ourt answered it in the negative because such

act was protected by Section / of the +rade &nions 5ct, 4;.

C*6M6$+:

+he civil court came to the conclusion that there was no trade dispute pending between

the parties and hence, Section / had no application to the fact. It also issued a notice of

motion in absolute in terms of prayer. +he High )ourt observed that directions amount to

intimidation or coercion and, therefore, protected by Section /. +he court added that the

act in contemplation or in furtherance of trade dispute, which induces breach of contract

of other employees causes interference with the trade, business or employment of some

other person fell within the ambit and scope of Section /. However, the inducement or interference must be by lawful means. In other words, Section / does not give protection

to the trade union from acts of violence./ +he court accordingly held that the union was

entitled to carry out its legitimate trade union activities peacefully and, therefore, slogans

or demonstrations per se could not be termed as unlawful and hence, a blan!et injunction

could not be granted in that behalf. +he court however, cautioned that this was not to say

14


15/20


16/20

stri!es must be peaceful and not violent and there is no e"emption where an offence is

committed. +herefore, a concerted movement by wor!men by gathering together either

outside the industrial establishment or inside, within the wor!ing hours is permissible

when it is peaceful and does not violate the provisions of law. But when such a gathering

is unlawful or commits an offence then the e"emption is lost. +hus, where it resorts to

unlawful confinement of persons criminal trespass or where it becomes violent and

indulges in criminal force or criminal assault or mischief to person or property or

molestation or intimidation, the e"emption can no longer be claimed.

R


17/20

Supreme )ourt did not decide the @uestion as to whether the 8atna High )ourt was right

in relying on Section / of the 5ct to rebuff the claim for compensation because the

Supreme )ourt did not wish to rest their judgement on that ground.

Th3 D34h& St


18/20

Fhether an e" pane injunction order for restraining from holding any demonstration,

bloc!age, dharna, pic!eting and in any manner causing obstruction in the ingress or

egress to and from the premises at offices at and also from bloc!ing the wor!ing of the

plaintiff G

C*6M6$+:

+he interim order dated


19/20

Shah5


20/20

5ccordingly, the )ourt below had jurisdiction to proceed with the suit for perpetual

injunction restraining the defendant trade union office bearers, members, sympathiers

from resorting the illegal means during the stri!e either directly or through their

members, sympathiers and supporters in the hume pipe factory of plaintiff Shahdol 8ipe

For!s. It is admitted that defendant trade union is a registered trade union and after

giving the re@uisite notice went on stri!e. +herefore, none of the defendant shall be held

liable for any tortuous act done in contemplation or furtherance of the trade dispute

aforesaid.. 5ccordingly, the )ourt below rightly rejected the claim for recovery of

damages as claimed by plaintiffs Shahdol 8ipe For!s.

20

immunities from civil proceedings.docx

Documents