9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stival of Diwali which has arrested the mobility of the population in the rural area in the State. It is further contended that, though the State is a stakeholder and has control over the Corporation, it has not taken notable efforts to resolve the issues for last more than four days for one reason or another not known to them. It is contended that, the so called passive attitude of the State is aggravating the situation across the State causing immense inconvenience to children, senior citizens, daily commuters. It is contended, there is no alternative infrastructure and/or commuting facility available in the rural area of the State. It is contended that the private transporters are exploiting the situation in absence of a proper and effective regulating authority. It is contended, on several routes no private transport facility is also available which has isolated the population of that area from the rest of the world. That in these circumstances, the petitioners would contend that, the State being the final Controlling Authority in terms of the provisions of Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, the State may be directed to resolve this burning issue by evolving some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue. The learned Counsel appearing for the State sought time to take instructions and accordingly the matter was adjourned to 20th October, 2017. Today, when the petitions were heard, the learned Counsel for the State was not armed with any instructions. That after hearing the Counsel for the Corporation, and for the Union, it was suggested to the Counsel for the State, that he may obtain instructions as to whether the State intends to appoint a high-powered Committee. He was also directed to take instructions as about the steps taken by the State to make alternate arrangements for commuting, ferrying the passengers across the State. So as to enable the Counsel to obtain instructions, the hearing of the petition 7. The Learned Counsel appearing for the State, submitted a statement, inter-alia recording the steps taken by the State to alleviate the problem faced by the citizens on account of the impugned strike in issue. He submitted thus :- (i)the State Government issued a Notification dated 16th October, 2017 permitting all private vehicles, school buses, company buses and goods carriers to carry out the work of plying and ferrying the passengers for the entire duration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He has invited my attention to the provisions of Section 22(1)(a) and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Mr. Hegde, submitted that the strike of the employees of the Corporation is per-se illegal, inasmuch as, it is in breach of the provisions of Clause (a) which requires the notice of six weeks before going on strike. In the case in hand, admittedly the notice w as given on 29th September, 2017 and that too under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. It was pointed out by Mr. Hegde that the notice given by the respondent, Union was of 14 days whereas the requirement is of six weeks, when the person is employed in the public utility service industry. Mr. Hegde, further pointed out that the resort to the strike was also in the breach of Clause (d) of Section 22(1)of the I.D. Act. 12. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, Corporation, further submitted that the Corporation had moved the Labour Court, Latur in Reference (ULP) No.1 of 2017 seeking prohibitory order of injunction to restrain the employees of the Corporation from resorting to the strike. In the said reference, the Learned Labour Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted on 16.10.2017. A copy of the notice is taken on record and marked as Exhibit 'X-1 for Identification'. 16. Mr. Hegde, therefore submitted that the Respondent-Union went on the strike on the midnight of 16.10.2017 was clearly in the breach of the provisions of Clauses (a) and (d) of Section 22(1) of the ID Act. Mr. Hegde further submitted that in terms of the Section 24 of the ID Act, strike by the Respondents is per-se illegal as it is in the breach of Clauses (a) and (d) as referred to hereinabove. 17. The learned counsel, however, refuted the submissions and contended that the subject notification dated 29.9.2017 issued by the State declaring the Corporation undertakes public utility service within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the ID Act is malafide action to upset the strike notice given by the Union on 29.9.2017. The learned counsel for the Union further submitted that the order passed in reference by the Labour Court at Latur is challenged by the Union in revision on the several grounds. She further submitted that the two Courts of competent jurisdiction are seized of the subject issue and, therefore, this Court cannot declare the strike resorted to by the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al right and answered that no such right exists with the Government employees. The questions posed and answered were; (a) There is no fundamental right to go on the strike. (b) There is no legal or statutory right to go on the strike. (c) There is no moral or equitable justification to go on the strike. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 15 of the said judgment has observed thus: "15. In Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar a three-Judge Bench of this Court approved the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court by holding thus: (SCC p.202, para 3) "There cannot be any doubt that the fundamental rights of the people as a whole cannot be subservient to the claim of fundamental right of an individual or only a section of the people. It is on the basis of this distinction that the High Court has rightly concluded that there cannot be any right to call or enforce a 'bandh' which interferes with the exercise of the fundamental freedoms of other citizens, in addition to causing national loss in many ways. We may also add that the reasoning given by the High Court, particularly those in paragraphs 12,13 and 17 for the ultimate conclusion and direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iations with the high-powered Committee and arrive at an amicable solution. All these suggestions were not accepted by the Union. The Corporation is state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and thus, its employees stand on same footing as of that Government servants. 26. That since the services of the Corporation are in the nature of public utility and since the strike has caused immense inconvenience to the rural population and since the respondent, Union is not willing to have a resort to the machinery provided by the State i.e. constitution of high-powered Committee and also by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme court in the case of T.K. Rangarajan (supra), this Court is of the view that the strike by the employees of the State Transport Corporation of Maharashtra is, prima-facie, illegal and hence the following order :- (i)the strike by the employees of the State Transport Corporation is hereby declared illegal. (ii)The strike by the employees of the State Transport Corporation is hereby recalled. (iii)the respondent, Unions are directed to inform its employees that the Court has directed them to resume their duties forthwith. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
