LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023

TC – 66

LABOUR LAW- I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023

before

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF –

BHARTIYA MAZDOOR SANGH …APPELLANT

V.

SAURASHTRA ELECTRONICS LIMITED … RESPONDENT

[WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT]

~ ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ~

1
 --MEMORIALforRESPONDENT--

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................ II

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION… ................................................................................VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. VII

ISSUES RAISED… ............................................................................................................. VIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................... IX

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED… ............................................................................................XI

PRAYERS… ..................................................................................................................... XXIV

2
 --MEMORIALforRESPONDENT--

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Words
Del Delhi

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

v. Versus

Sec Section

I.D.A Industrial Disputes Act

Ltd. Limited

PSU Public Sector Undertaking

AIR All India Reporter

& And

Ors. Others

3
 --MEMORIALforRESPONDENT--

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. Mineral Miner Union v. Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd, ILR 1988 KAR 2878
2. Municipal Committee v. Industrial Tribunal, 1971 2 LLJ 52
3. All India Bank Employees Association v. National Industrial Tribunal and Ors, 1962 SCR (3)
369
4. Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak, AIR 1995 SC 319
5. Crompton Greaves vs. the Workmen, (1978) 3 SCC 155
6. V.V. Giri v. Indian Airlines Corporation, AIR 1971 SC 305
7. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Lala Ram Sharma, (1985) 3 SCC 189
8. India General Navigation and Railway Company Ltd., and another v. Their Workmen, AIR
1960 SC 2019
9. Central Bank Of India Ltd. V P.S. Rajagopalan, 1964 AIR 743
10. Jadhav v Forbes global ltd, (2005) L.L.B. 1089
11. Mineral Miner Union v. Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd., ILR 1988 KAR 2878
12. Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Michael Mark, AIR 1963 SC 1141
13. Oriental Textile Finishing Mills v. Labour Court, (1971) 3 SCC 646
14. Air India Corporation, Bombay v. V.A. Rebellow, AIR 1972 SC 1343
15. Hariprasad Shivshankar Shukla v. A.D. Divikar, [1957] 1 SCR 121
16. Kamleshkumar Rajanikant Mehta v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial
Tribunal No. 1, 1979(39) FLR 329
17. Torrent Power Ltd. v. Chelabhai Nathabhai Luhar, (2018) 1 GLR 392

STATUTES REFERRED

⮚ The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

⮚ The Trade Union Act, 1926

4
 --MEMORIALforRESPONDENT--

SOURCES

⮚ www.livelaw.in
⮚ www.scconline.com
⮚ www.manupatra.com
⮚ www.lexisnexis.com
⮚ Books
l. K.M Pillai, Labour and industrial laws, 1999
2. B.S. Goswami, Labour and Industrial Laws
S. N. Misra, Labour and Industrial Laws

5
 --MEMORIALforRESPONDENT--

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has the jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Article 227
of Constitution of India,1950.

Article 227 of Constitution Of India, 1950

227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court

1. Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction

2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may

(a) call for returns from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and
proceedings of such courts; and

(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any
such courts

(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and
officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause
(3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and
shall require the previous approval of the Governor

(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court power of superintendence
over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

6
 --MEMORIALforRESPONDENT--

STATEMENT OF FACTS

❖ FACTUAL MATRIX
Saurashtra Electronics Limited (SEL), established in 1956, operates as a Navratna PSU under the
Ministry of Defence, Government of India, catering to diverse sectors such as military,
government, and civilians. Initially focused on meeting the electronic equipment needs of the
Indian Defence Services, SEL has expanded its presence in non-military markets. It is a prominent
Electronic Manufacturing Company in Delhi, recognized for its technological contributions in
heavy electrical equipment. Over the years, SEL evolved from a manufacturing PSU to a public
company in 1991, diversifying its product range to include electrical, electronic, and mechanical
equipment for various sectors. While engaged in designing, engineering, and manufacturing,
SEL's major revenue still stems from power generation equipment, constituting 55% of India's
total installed capacity. Despite its market leadership, SEL faces challenges related to the working
conditions of contractual workers, prompting the formation of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh.
Emergence Of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh and Its Demands
Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh amalgamated from three registered trade unions, it advocates for the
implementation of the 7th Pay Commission and the regularization of contractual positions.
Negotiations between Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh and SEL management reached an impasse,
leading to industrial unrest and strikes. In response, the management declared the strike illegal
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and took disciplinary actions against the workers,
including retrenchment. Additionally, a union member was suspended during the dispute leading
to further intensifying the differences between the parties.

Procedural History
Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, in light of the above actions, contested in the Labour Court, which ruled
in favor of the management, awarding Rs. 2 lakhs compensation for losses incurred by SEL.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the union filed a case before the Delhi High Court, subject matter
of dispute relates to the legitimacy of the strike and further asserting that the retrenchment violated
their rights under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.

7
 --MEMORIALforRESPONDENT--

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I
➢ WHETHER THE HUNGER STRIKE FOLLOWED BY DAMAGE OF PROPERTY
IS A LEGAL STRIKE AS PER INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT?

ISSUE II
➢ WHETHER THE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL IMMUNITY WILL BE GRANTED TO THE
UNION IN THIS CASE?

ISSUE III
➢ WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL DISPUTE OF SUSPENDING RAMESH KUMAR
COULD BE CONVERTED INTO AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE?

ISSUE IV
➢ WHETHER RETRENCHMENT OF FEW WORKERS WHO WERE MEMBER OF
BHARTIYA MAZDOOR SANGH BY THE MANAGEMENT VIOLATES THE
PROVISIONS OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947?

8
 LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. The hunger strike followed by damage of property is an illegal strike as per Industrial
dispute Act.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the respondent was engaged in giving
progressed items and frameworks to the military and government though it dealt with non-
military people and was thus engaged in public utility service. Section 24 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 provides that a strike is illegal if it is in violation with the provisions of
Section 22 of the Act. The strike may be declared as illegal if the grounds and conditions laid
down for the legal strike are adhered to by the Trade Union while resorting to strike. The
Union acted in contravention to the provision of Section 22 as the period of notice as
stipulated under the section. The negotiations between the parties were time and again
disrupted by the acts of the petitioner. Despite this, the Management attempted to undertake
constant negotiations with petitioner and overlooking the acts of the petitioner, the respondent
took considerable measures to reach at a common point of settlement. The hunger strike
conducted for a period of 15 days was used a weapon by the petitioner to tarnish the repute
of the Respondent as no alternate remedy was availed by the Union in order to resolve the
ongoing industrial dispute.

II. The Union is not Entitled to the Civil and Criminal Immunities

The submission strongly argues against granting civil and criminal immunity to the appellant
under Sections 17 and 18 of The Trade Union Act, 1926. Emphasizing non-compliance with
the legal framework, it contends that the appellant engaged in frequent and unjustified strikes,
disturbing industrial peace and causing financial losses for the company. The statutory
framework underscores that immunities don't cover actions beyond legitimate trade union
activities or those deemed illegal or criminal. The disciplinary actions taken by SEL,
including wage deductions and retrenchment, are deemed justified responses to the illegal
strike, with the submission invoking legal precedent to support these measures.

Thus, the actions of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh were in violation of legal frameworks, and
consequently, civil and criminal immunity should not be granted to the union. The company
argues for the importance of upholding the rule of law and maintaining a balance between
workers' rights and the lawful functioning of the organization.

9
 LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023

III. The Individual dispute of suspending Ramesh Kumar cannot be converted into an
Industrial dispute.
The suspension of Ramesh Kumar, a member of the union, and the subsequent legal action
taken against him by Saurashtra Electronics Limited (SEL) are integral components of a
broader industrial conflict. This individual dispute involving Ramesh Kumar is intricately
connected to the larger grievances presented by the Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh concerning
working conditions, demands for the 7th Pay Commission, and issues related to contractual
workers.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, recognizes that industrial disputes may involve
individual workmen and considers the possibility of converting individual disputes into
industrial disputes. In this context, the suspension of Ramesh Kumar can be seen as a
strategic move by the management to quell union activities and discourage collective
bargaining.
The circumstances leading to Ramesh Kumar's suspension are emblematic of the broader
discontent among workers, making it an inherent part of the industrial dispute. The plaintiff
contends that addressing Ramesh Kumar's case in isolation would undermine the
fundamental issues at play and fail to address the collective grievances of the workers.
Therefore, the plaintiff argues that the individual dispute involving Ramesh Kumar should
be considered an integral part of the larger industrial dispute, emphasizing the
interconnected nature of the issues raised by the Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh.

IV. Retrenchment of few workers who were member of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh by the
Management does not violate the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the retrenchment of workers of
Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh by the management of Saurashtra Electronics Limited (SEL) is
not violative of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workers were an important part of an
illegal strike which amounts to misconduct on their part and provides the employer the
opportunity to take action against them.
The ambit of the term “retrenchment” does not within its ambit include the termination
which was done by the SEL, as it was done on account of misconduct on the part of the
workers after finding them guilty. The negotiations were hindered by frequent strikes,
causing reputational damage and financial losses. Despite the management's attempts at
negotiation, the petitioner's unyielding stance and resort to a hunger strike disrupted the
industrial peace.

10
 LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

~I~
THE HUNGER STRIKE FOLLOWED BY DAMAGE OF PROPERTY IS AN ILLEGAL
STRIKE AS PER INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT
A. Respondent engaged in Public Utility Services
The respondent humbly draws the attention of the Hon’ble Court that it was engaged in
providing public utility service. The respondent is engaged in giving progressed items and
frameworks to the military and government though it dealt with non-military people. Further,
it is contended that the respondents also supplied electric locomotives to the Indian Railways
and defence equipment to the Indian Air Force.
Section 2 (n) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that “public utility service”
means— (i) any railway service [or any transport service for the carriage of passengers or
goods by air]; [(ia) any service in, or in connection with the working of, any major port 9 [or
dock or any industrial establishment or unit engaged in essential defence services]; (ii) any
section of an industrial establishment, on the working of which the safety of the establishment
or the workmen employed therein depends; (iii) any postal, telegraph or telephone service;
(iv) any industry which supplies power, light or water to the public; (v) any system of public
conservancy or sanitation; (vi) any industry specified in the [First Schedule] which the
appropriate Government may, if satisfied that public emergency or public interest so requires,
by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of
this Act, for such period as may be specified in the notification”.
B. Procedure for declaration of strike in Public Sector Undertaking
The strike conducted by the workmen can be declared as illegal as it was in violation of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent draws the attention of the
Hon’ble Court that Section 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that a strike is
illegal if it is in violation with the provisions of Section 22 and 23 of the Act. The respondent
humbly submits that Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that the (1) No
person employed in a public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract— (a)
without giving to the employer notice of strike, as hereinafter provided, within six weeks
before striking; or (b) within fourteen days of giving such notice; or (c) before the expiry of
the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid; or (d) during the pendency of any
conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days after the conclusion of

11
 LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023
such proceedings. (3) The notice of strike under this section shall not be necessary where there
is already in existence a strike in the public utility service, but the employer shall send
intimation of such strike on the day on which it is declared, to such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government either generally or for a particular area or for a
particular class of public utility services. (4) The notice of strike referred to in sub-section (1)
shall be given by such number of persons to such person or persons and in such manner as
may be prescribed. (6) If on any day an employer receives from any persons employed by him
any such notices as are referred to in sub-section (1), he shall within five days thereof report
to the appropriate Government or to such authority as that Government may prescribe.
C. Notice not duly served upon the respondents
The Trade Union and the respondents were in the process of the negotiations when the hunger
strike was declared by the workmen. Where a person is employed in public utility service,
then the strike cannot be conducted without satisfying the procedure mentioned under Section
22 of Industrial Disputes Act,19471. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 adopts a prolonged
approach to prevent the use of instruments of economic coercion in public utility concerns and
thereby to maintain continuity of production or services. In Mineral Miner Union v.
Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the provisions of
Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are mandatory and the date on which the
workmen propose to go on a strike should be specified in the notice. If meanwhile the date of
strike specified in the notice of strike expires, workmen have to give fresh notice. In Municipal
Committee v. Industrial Tribunal3, the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the contention
that the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are
merely directory in nature and a patent violation of these provisions would entail no legal
consequences and reiterated that compliance with the provisions of Section 22 is the core of
the matter for determining whether a particular strike be legal or otherwise.
D. Hunger strike in contravention to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The respondent contends that the negotiations between the parties were time and again
disrupted by the acts of the petitioner. The frequent strikes and affecting the production of
work caused a stain on the reputation of the respondent as it failed to fulfil its commitments
for the timely delivery of products. This even caused financial losses to the respondent.
Despite the hostile attitude of the workmen, the Management attempted to undertake heedful
negotiations with petitioner and overlooking the acts of the petitioner, the respondent took
considerable measures to reach at a common point of settlement. However, the attitude of the

1
Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. The Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T 1972 AIR 1216
2
ILR 1988 KAR 2878
3
1971 2 LLJ 52
12
 LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023
petitioner remained unchanged and the hunger strike was undertaken by the workmen in
contravention to the procedure established under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In All India Bank Employees Association v. National Industrial Tribunal and Ors 4 , the
Supreme Court held, "the right to strike or right to declare lock out may be controlled or
restricted by appropriate industrial legislation and the validity of such legislation would have
to be tested not with reference to the criteria laid down in clause (4) of article 19 but by totally
different considerations." Thus, there is a guaranteed fundamental right to form association or
Labour unions but there is no fundamental right to go on strike. Under the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 the ground and condition are laid down for the legal strike and if those provisions
and conditions are not fulfilled then the strike will be illegal.
E. Petitioner resorted to strike without availing alternate remedies
It is submitted by the respondents that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank v. K.
Umesh Nayak5 observed that "while the legality of the strike is based on examining whether
there is breach of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the question of justifiability of
strike has to be examined by taking into consideration factors such as service conditions,
nature of demands, the cause which led to the strike, urgency of the cause or the demands of
the workmen, reason for not resorting to the dispute resolving machinery under the Act, etc.
While the negotiations were still going on between the management and the Trade Union,
deliberate attempts were made by the petitioner to disturb the industrial peace. It is wrong to
suggest that the management paid no heed to the demands of the workmen as many rounds of
negotiations were already undertaken by the parties. However, the nature of the demand by
the petitioner was multifaceted and required serious deliberations within the management for
fulfilment of those demands. The petitioner failed to understand the gravity of the situation
and took up frequent strikes leading to disruption in the flourishing business of the respondent.
F. Deduction of wages for the strike period of 15 days
The respondent humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that as per the Industrial
Jurisprudence developed for the benefit of the workers as a combined efforts of the three
pillars of democracy, it is well established that No wages are payable if the strike is illegal or
it is unjustified. Further, if the workers indulge in violence, no wages will be payable even
when their strike was justifiably legal. The workmen must not take any hasty steps in resorting
to strike. They must, first, take steps to settle the dispute through conciliation or adjudication
except when the matter is urgent and of serious nature. When the workmen might well have
waited for some time, after conciliation efforts had failed, before starting a strike, and in the

4
1962 SCR (3) 369
5
AIR 1995 SC 319
13
 LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023
meantime could have asked the Government to make a reference, the strike would be
unjustified and the workmen would not have the entitlement to wages for the strike period.
Since the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is silent upon the wages during the period of strike the
issue of denial of wages during the period of strike has been under constant judicial scrutiny
in various courts or tribunals across the country. This matter has been discussed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Crompton Greaves vs. the Workmen6, where the Hon'ble Court held that "It
is well settled that in order to entitle the workmen to wages for the period of strike, the strike
should be legal as well as justified. The petitioner after failing to arrive at a settlement with
the respondent did not take any alternate recourse developed by the Industrial Laws and
resorted directly to strike causing capital loss to the respondent and thus the claim of wages
for the period of illegal strike cannot be raised by the petitioner.

~ II ~
THAT THE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL IMMUNITY SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
TO THE UNION

It is humbly submitted that the Appellant, Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, must not be granted civil
and criminal immunity according to the statutory provisions of Section 17 and Section 18 of
The Trade Union Act, 1926 and the contemporary judicial interpretations.
A. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Section 17 of the Trade Union Act,1926 confers immunity from liability in case of criminal
conspiracy under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 committed by an office bearer
or member of a registered trade union. This protection provided to the office bearers and
members is partial in the sense that immunity is in respect of agreements made between the
members for the purpose of furthering any legitimate object of the trade union as provided in
Section 15 of the Act7. Registered Trade Unions have certain rights to do in furtherance of
their trade disputes, such as to declare strike and for that purpose to persuade their members to
abstain from their work.

Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 deals with the immunity from civil proceedings
afforded to a registered Trade Union, and to its members or office bearers. A person is liable in
Torts for deliberately bringing about a breach of contract of employment between the
employer and the employee. But a registered Trade Union, its members or office bearers are
protected from being sued for inducing a person to break his contract of employment or for
interfering with the trade, business or employment of some other person, provided such

6
(1978) 3 SCC 155
7
Trade Union Act,1926
14
 LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023
inducement is in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.

The extent of trade union immunities in India has been subject to judicial interpretation. In the
case of V.V. Giri v. Indian Airlines Corporation8, the Supreme Court of India held, that the
immunities provided to trade unions under the Trade Union Act of 1926 are not absolute. The
court held that the immunities would not apply to acts committed by trade unions or their
members that are outside the scope of “legitimate trade union activities".
In Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Lala Ram Sharma9, the apex court held that the
immunity provided under Section 17 and 18 of the Trade Union Act of 1926 would not apply
to acts committed by trade unions or their members that are illegal or criminal in nature or
outside the four corners of the statutory contours.
Thus, firstly, the immunity shall not be granted to the union as the frequent strikes were
conducted with illegitimate object. Additionally, there is no rational object of “adequate
allowances and working conditions” which bears nexus with its demands for implementation
of 7th Pay commission and permanent positions.

Additionally, significant words in the section18 are "on the ground only", that such act induces
some other person to break 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. Thus, the p10rotection is limited only to the grounds
of actionability provided in section 18(1) and hence, a registered trade union, members or
office bearers will become liable for acts not covered in the above clause like- threats, violence,
pen down strikes or other illegal means are employed.

Thus, despite several rounds of discussions, no agreement was achieved. The industrial peace
got disturbed that led to frequent strikes affecting the production and target delivery of
products causing financial losses for the company. Irrespective, the appellant on a spree of
illegal actions and in order to forcefully compel the management decided to go for 15 days of
Bhook Hartal. The object of these sections provides to punish for picketing which can take the
form of molestation/prejudice of employment or business.

B. UNJUSTIFIED STRIKE AND VIOLATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

ACT
The strike conducted by the union was not only illegal but also violated the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. The company asserts that despite being given notice, the strike disturbed industrial
peace, causing financial losses. The strike was not conducted in accordance with the law, as

8
AIR 1971 SC 305
9
(1985) 3 SCC 189
10
Section 18, The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
15
 LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023
stipulated by the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the union is not entitled to the civil and
criminal immunity provided under Sections 17 and 18 of The Trade Union Act,1926.

The immunities would not apply to acts committed by trade unions or their members that are
outside the scope of legitimate trade union activities. The immunities would also not apply to
acts committed by trade unions or their members that are illegal or criminal in nature.
Moreover, the immunities would not protect trade unions or their members from liability
arising from breach of contract or breach of statutory obligations as nothing was in furtherance
of the trade dispute. The immunities would also not protect trade unions or their members
from liability arising from defamation or injury to reputation.
C. JUSTIFIED DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AS A RESPONSE TO VIOLATIONS
SEL justifies the disciplinary actions, including the deduction of wages and retrenchment, as
necessary responses to the illegal strike and disruption caused by the union. These actions
were taken in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act and were essential to maintain
discipline within the organization. Such actions are legitimate measures to safeguard the
company's interests and are not covered under the immunities provided by Section 17 or 18.
The disciplinary actions were well-founded and not arbitrary, ensuring a fair process as
mandated by judicial interpretations and statutory obligations.
D. JUSTIFIED DEDUCTION OF WAGES
The apex court in the India General Navigation and Railway Company Ltd., and another v.
Their Workmen11, if the strike was illegal, workmen are not entitled to wages or compensation
and they are also liable to punishment by way of discharge or dismissal. The Supreme Court
held that:
"It is difficult to understand how a strike in respect of a public utility service, which is clearly
illegal could at the same time be justified. These two conclusions cannot in law exist, the law
has not made any distinction between an illegal strike which may be said to be justified and
one which is not justifiable".
It was further observed by the Supreme Court that in case of an illegal strike the only question
of practical importance would be the quantum of punishment. To decide the quantum of
punishment a clear distinction has to be made, between violent strikers and peaceful strikers.
The first category of strikers is to be dealt with more severely and the punishment of dismissal,
discharge or termination has to be imposed upon them. It would neither be in the interest of
industry nor the workmen to effect wholesale dismissal of all striking workmen. The
justification of a strike is not to be judged from the result of adjudication of demands.

11
AIR 1960 SC 2019
16
 LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023
In conclusion, the extent of trade union immunities in India is not absolute, and there are
limitations to these immunities. The statutory immunities provided to trade unions under the
Trade Union Act of 1926 would not apply to acts committed by trade unions or their members
that are outside the scope of legitimate trade union activities or that are illegal or criminal in
nature. Moreover, the immunities would not protect trade unions or their members from
liability arising from breach of contract or breach of statutory obligations or from liability
arising from defamation or injury to reputation. Therefore, trade unions in India need to be
aware of these limitations while carrying out their activities

~III~
THE INDIVIDUAL DISPUTE OF SUSPENDING RAMESH KUMAR CAN NOT BE
AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
The question that whether the individual dispute of Mr Ramesh Kumars suspension be
converted into an industrial dispute can be answered simply after a personal Section of 2A of
the Industrial dispute can be answered simply after a perusal of Section 2A of the industrial
dispute act 1947 which states “where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or
therwise terminated the services of any indivdsual workman, any dispute or difference
between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising oout of such discharge,
dismissal, or retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute,
notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen, is a party to the dispute.
In the present case Mr Rmesh Kumar has not been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or
terminated rather he was merely suspended the after the due discipianry proceedings due to
his misconduct towards the officers of the respondents and hence does not attract section 2A”.

The landmark case of Central Bank Of India Ltd. V P.S. Rajagopalan12, underscores the
principle that an industrial dispute must pertain to a collective issue affecting a class of
workmen. Individsual grienvances, unless impacting a largeer collective, do not fall under the
purview of an industrial dispute. In the present case the suspenion of Mr Ramesh Kumar
remains an individusal issue and does not affect a class of workmen nor does the suspension
of once employee hinder the collective bargaining strenght ofo appelllants.

Further in the case of Jadhav v Forbes global ltd13, it was held by the supreme court that a
dispute relationg to as ingle workman may only be an industrial dispute if either it is
espounded by the union or by a number of workmen irrespective of the reason the union

12
1964 AIR 743
13
(2005) L.L.B. 1089
17
 LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023
espousing the cause of worman was not the majority of the union. In the present case the
individsual dispute of Mr Ramesh Kumar has in no way been adopted or espounded by the
appliant union hence it annot be considered to be an industrial dispute.

It is also pertinent to note that under Section 33(2)(b) of the industrial dispute act 1947, the
employer can for the misconducct of the workan discharge or punish by way of dismissal or
otherwise the matter certainly shall not be connected to the pending dispute. In the case of sri
dorairaj spintex v r chittibabu and others the supreme court stated that section 33(2)(b)
recognizes the authority of the employer to initiate discilinary action while at the same time
imposing safeguard. Once we have come to the conclusion that the action of dismissal for
misconduct was not connect with the dispute which was pending in concilliation the provison
of section33(2)(b) of industrial dispute act would not attracted. Theere is no dispute about the
fact that there was complince of the provision of section 33(2)(b). in the present case the
suspension of Mr Ramesh Kumar due to his misconduct under the provision of section
33(2)(b).
~IV~
RETRENCHMENT OF FEW WORKERS WHO WERE MEMBER OF BHARTIYA
MAZDOOR SANGH BY THE MANAGEMENT DOES NOT VIOLATES THE
PROVISIONS OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the retrenchment of workers of
Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh by the management of Saurashtra Electronics Limited (SEL) is not
violative of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There were three registered trade unions which
were amalgamated into ‘Bharitya Mazdoor Sangh (“the Union”)’ and the appellant was in
negotiations with the management for implementation of 7th pay commission and to notify
permanent positions.
A. Illegal Strikes
The respondent humbly draws the attention of the Hon’ble Court that it was engaged in
providing public utility service as defined under Section 2 (n) of the Act. The Trade Union
and the respondents were in the process of negotiations when the hunger strike was declared
by the workmen. Where a person is employed in public utility service, the strike cannot be
conducted without satisfying the procedure mentioned under Section 22 of the Act.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 adopts a prolonged approach to prevent the use of
instruments of economic coercion in public utility concerns and thereby to maintain continuity

18
 LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023
of production or services. In Mineral Miner Union v. Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. 14, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 are mandatory in nature.

It is pertinent to note that the Union disturbed industrial peace and instigated several strikes.
In the end, the Union organized a “bhookh hartal” as a strike which was alleged and found to
be illegal. The learned Labour Court has appreciated the facts of the instant case and decided
in favour of the management.

B. Participation in an illegal strike amount to Misconduct

The Apex Court in Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Michael Mark 15 held that if employees
absent themselves from work because of a strike, for the enforcement of their demands, there
can be no question of abandonment of employment by them. And, if the strike is illegal, the
employer may take action against the workmen under Standing Orders or otherwise, and
dismiss them. Participating in an illegal strike amount to misconduct on the part of the
employee and can expose him to disciplinary action. In Oriental Textile Finishing Mills v.
Labour Court 16 , the hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the strike is illegal, the
management, in order to justify dismissal or order of termination of services of the workmen
on the ground of misconduct, need not prove that they were guilty of some overt act.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’) excludes termination on account of ‘misconduct’
from the purview of ‘retrenchment’ and protects the nona fide interests of the emplyer. For
instance, in Air India Corporation, Bombay v. V.A. Rebellow17, the Supreme Court noted:
‘… The opinion formed by the employer about the suitability of his employee for
the job assigned to him even though erroneous, if bona fide, is in our opinion
final and not subject to review by the industrial adjudication.’
C. Ambit of Retrenchment
The Act defines the term ‘retrenchment’ in an expansive manner to mean termination by the
employer of the service of a worker ‘for any reason whatsoever’. S.2(oo)18 of the Act defines
Retrenchment as, “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a
workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of
disciplinary action, but does not include—

14
ILR 1988 KAR 2878
15
AIR 1963 SC 1141
16
(1971) 3 SCC 646
17
AIR 1972 SC 1343
18
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947), S.2 (oo)
19
 LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of
employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that
behalf; or

(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract
of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such
contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health

The Supreme Court had in Hariprasad Shivshankar Shukla v. A.D. Divikar19, ruled that the
words ‘for any reason whatsoever’ covers only instances involving the discharge of surplus
labour or staff by the employer which has been reiterated by the Bombay High Court and the
Gujarat High Court in the case of Kamleshkumar Rajanikant Mehta v. Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 20 and Torrent Power Ltd. v. Chelabhai
Nathabhai Luhar21 respectively. It is most humbly submitted that in the present scenario, the
management initiated disciplinary proceedings against the workers and only took action after
finding them guilty.

D. Disrespecting the spirit of industrial co-operation and failure to maintain industrial

peace
The respondent contends that the negotiations between the parties were time and again
disrupted by the acts of the workers. The frequent strikes and affecting the production of work
caused a stain on not only the reputation of the respondent as it failed to fulfill its professional
commitments for the timely delivery of products it also caused financial losses to the
respondent.
While the negotiations were still going on between the management and the Trade Union,
deliberate attempts were made by the petitioner to disturb the industrial peace. It would be
unfair to suggest that the management paid no heed to the demands of the workmen as many
rounds of negotiations were already undertaken by the parties. The petitioner after failing to
arrive at a settlement with the respondent did not take any alternate recourse developed by the
Industrial Laws and resorted directly to strike causing capital loss to the respondent.

19
[1957] 1 SCR 121
20
1979(39) FLR 329
21
(2018) 1 GLR 392
20
 LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023
Henceforth, it is crucial to note that due to frequent strikes – production and target delivery
of products were adversely affected which caused substantial financial losses for the
respondent firm. The appellant had filed a case before the learned Labour Court against the
respondent firm. The learned Labour Court, upon careful consideration of evidence and facts,
passed an award in favour of the respondent along with compensation of 2 lakh rupees for the
losses suffered.

21
 LABOUR LAW-I MOOT ACTIVITY, 2023

PRAYERS

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court, that it may be pleased to:

1. Declare that, the hunger strike is a not legal strike as per Industrial Dispute Act.

2. Uphold that, civil and criminal immunity cannot be granted to the union in the given matter.

3. Uphold that, the individual dispute of suspending Ramesh Kumar is not an industrial dispute.

4. Uphold that, retrenchment of few workers, who were member of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, by
the Management does not violate the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

AND PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT IT MAY
DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE RESPONDENT AS ARE
DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED,

TC-66

(Counsels for the Respondent)

22