How To Handle Labour Violence and Unrest-1595431858

TRADE UNIONS,
LABOUR-MANAGEMENT
DISPUTES AND COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING
How to Handle Labour Violence and Unrest

Trade Unions, Labour-Management Disputes and Collective
Bargaining
Violence by labourers in the context of industrial disputes

Industrial violence has been prevalent since colonial India and continued even after the
formation and recognition of trade unions.1 The labourers can resort to violence against the
employers either in order to achieve a goal or in the frustration of failure of
accomplishment of a goal. Some of the goals could be to eradicate wage disparity, have
proper working hours, salary-related issues, leave and attendance policy, etc.

Violence has not been defined anywhere under any labour laws. The only statute which
uses the term ‘violence’ is the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 under Schedule V which states
that usage of violence will amount to unfair labour practice. Therefore, for the
interpretation of the term ‘violence’, a reference to other sources is required.

Under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices
Act, 1971, labour violence is an unfair labour practice on the part of trade unions as per
Schedule III, Entry 2(b). Similarly, violence by employers is also an unfair labour practice as
per Schedule IV, Entry 10 of the Act.

Coming to the literal interpretation of the word, Merriam Webster Dictionary defines
violence as the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy. The World
report on violence and health (WRVH) defines violence as “the intentional use of physical
force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or
community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death,
psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.”

Various states have defined the term ‘violence’ in their Medicare Service Persons and
Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act
as an act which causes or may cause any harm, injury or endangering the life of, or
intimidation, obstruction or hindrance to, any Medicare Service Person in discharging his
duty in a Medicare Service Institution or causing damage or loss to the property in a
Medicare Service Institution.

In Ibrahimkutty v. State of Kerala (1984 Kerala High Court), the accused formed an unlawful
assembly and forcefully removed a boundary wall to widen the road, and was booked
under Section 143 which provides punishment for unlawful assembly, Section 147 which
provides punishment for rioting, Section 447 and Section 427 which provides punishment
for mischief read with Section 149 of IPC, it defined violence as “Unlawful exercise of physical
force. The court further explained that violence involves acts of great physical force, intense,
vehement, passionate, furious, impetuous and vivid.

1
Arnold, David. “Industrial Violence in Colonial India.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 22, no. 2,
1980, pp. 234–255. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/178408

© Addictive Learning Technology Pvt. Ltd.
Any unauthorized use, circulation or reproduction P - 2
shall attract suitable action under applicable law.

Bargaining
What can be termed as violence in industrial disputes?

In the context of the industrial disputes, the violence can be either verbal or physical in
form. Verbal violence includes raising of slogans, demonstrations, usage of filthy language,
etc. whereas physical violence includes throwing of bricks, rioting, causing any kind of
damage or loss to property or human life creating any threat to property or human life, etc.

View of Judiciary with respect to Industrial Disputes
Earlier the courts used to side with the workers and their unions in the cases of industrial
violence. However, with increasing number of disputes coupled with the instances of
violence causing damage to human life and property, the courts became reluctant in
favouring the workmen. This shift in the view was accepted by the Bombay High Court in
Suresh Baburao Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and others (1994).

In this case, the Court adopted deterrence punishment as a mandate considering the
nature and gravity of damage to life and property. 51 workmen had resorted to the acts of
violence by overturning and burning a van, throwing stones and metals on the police, the
Company’s Security staff and had also caused destruction to the property.

The High Court ordered the workmen to pay compensation. The Court observed that there
has been consistency in the cases of workers resorting to violence instead of opting for
other ways to resolve disputes such as permissible agitation or collective bargaining. It held
that this is misguided form of Trade Unionism and can never be tolerated by the Courts. It
further held that neither Industrial Disputes Act nor any other law allows any resort to
violence whatever may be the reasons behind provocation or justification of the violence.

Can an element of violence make it fit for a case to be
‘referred’ to the Labour Court by the Appropriate
Government?
Whether a case should be referred or not is independent of the element of ‘violence’ in
industrial dispute. In V. Veerarajan & Ors vs Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors (1987
Supreme Court), 154 workmen proceeded against Lucas T.V.S. Limited on some charges.

The question to be determined by the government is whether an industrial dispute exists.
The government may not use evidence of violence to infer that an industrial dispute exists.
If there is a disputed question of law or fact, the government must refer the dispute to the
tribunal, as per Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay, Supreme Court (1964).

Instead, in cases of violence, the management can simply file police complaints to bring
peace.


Bargaining
On failure of conciliation in regard to 7 of the dismissed workmen, disputes were raised
under s. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They asked the appropriate government
for a reference to labour court under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 which
empowers Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to provide relief in case of
discharge or dismissal of workmen read with Section 12(5) of the Act which provides for
reference by an appropriate Government to Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or National
Tribunal. The state government refused to make the reference.

An appeal was filed in the High Court which was rejected. The Appellant then filed a Special
Leave Petition. The State government stated 7 reasons for their refusal to reference. One of
the reasons mentioned was that there was industrial unrest followed by violence and
stoppage of work due to inter-union rivalry. The Court held this reason to be irrelevant and
not germane for the purpose of deciding whether the dispute should be referred to
industrial adjudication or not.

Does violence make a strike illegal?
There is neither any legislation nor any case law which states that if a workman resorts to
violence that will make a strike illegal. Indulgence in any form of violence during strike
amounts to unfair labour practices as defined under Schedule V of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 which states that if a workman indulges in any kind of force or violence or threats
in connection with a strike against non-striking workmen or against managerial staff, it will
amount to unfair labour practices. However, the Court has held that violence in strike is an
offence and there will be disentitlement of wages for the period of strike.

In Indian Bank v. Federation Of Indian Bank (1981 Madras High Court), some workmen
entered into the cabin of general manager and indulged in violent, unlawful and disorderly
acts. They humiliated, abused and intimidated the general manager. 11 of them were
suspended and 16 were transferred by the bank. Thereafter, 2 workmen called for a course
of agitation like relay hunger strike, dharna as well as demonstrations in front of the
Central Office of the bank and play cards containing abusive expressions and slogans and
they were placed all over the premises belonging to the Plaintiff. Paper posters with
caricatures were pasted on the walls of the building belonging to the Plaintiff. They also
indulged in preventing ingress and egress of members of staff, visitors, customers as well
as the tenants of the Bank premises.

The suit was filed under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code which provides punishment
for wrongful confinement. The workmen pleaded protection under Section 17 & 18 which
provides for exemption to trade union members from conspiracy and suits of civil nature
respectively. The Court held that there is no exemption to commit violence. It further held
that right to strike does not give any right to indulge in the acts of violence and under the
application of special law, usage of violence in a strike is an offence.

In Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1978 Supreme Court), the workmen went on a
strike and petitioner disentitled them from wages on the ground of illegal strike. The Court
held that for disentitling the workmen to the wages, the strike should be illegal or


Bargaining
unjustified. It also held that if there is inclusion of any violence, force or acts of sabotage,
then also it will amount to disentitlement to the wages. In the instant case, due to lack of
evidence for proving the violence on the part of workmen, the disentitlement was not
allowed.

What kinds of reliefs have labour/ industrial courts
awarded in the event of labour violence?
In the events of labour violence, the organization may undertake disciplinary proceedings
against those who were involved.

What kinds of disciplinary consequences can be imposed?

The Court has observed the following regarding different kinds of disciplinary
consequences:

1. Dismissal/ termination:

Whenever there has been illegal strike coupled with the labour violence, the Court has
upheld the dismissal of an employee if there is sufficient evidence to prove that
violence occurred. In Oriental Textile Finishing Mills, Amritsar v. Labour Court,
Jullundur and others (1971 Supreme Court), the workmen went on strike after which
the company issued a notice terminating the services of all the workmen. The
company again issued a notice asking for the workmen to return, some of them did
not rejoin. The company dismissed the employees who filed a petition in the Labour
Court. The Labour Court held dismissal as it was found that there was violence on the
part of workmen. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the termination order and asked
for reinstatement of the employees.

The matter was taken to the Supreme Court which held that there should be a
reasonable enquiry to prove that workmen were guilty of violence and therefore, the
reinstatement order by the Appellate Tribunal was held valid.

2. Interim Order And Police Protection Order:

In Audco India Ltd. v. The Audco India Employees' Union(1989 Madras High Court), the
workmen of the plaintiff (a public utility service company) went on a sudden strike
without giving any notice. The plaintiff filed a writ petition and the same was allowed
by the High Court. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a suit in which along with the
plaint, various documents were filed to support the case of plaintiff showing that
defendants gathered in large numbers at the entrance of the factory where they
intimidated, threatened, harassed and prevented all incoming and outgoing
personnel and also blocked the vehicles and indulged in violence. The plaintiff asked
for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, the members of trade union,
their associations, agent and workmen from preventing or obstructing entry of


Bargaining
necessary men or vehicles in the factory premises and from gathering or picketing
within a radius of 100 yards from the entrance to the premises of the plaintiff's
factory.

The High Court considering the troubles caused to the plaintiff by the defendants,
passed an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from the activities as was
pleaded by the plaintiff. It also held that strikes ordinarily include obstruction of
goods but there are cases where it cannot be allowed due to the involvement of
public interest. In the present case, the plaintiff was a public company therefore
obstruction in delivery of goods would affect public interest at large.

In Kerala Spinning Mills Workers v. Kerala Spinners Ltd.(1994 Kerala High Court), a writ
petition was filed against a police protection order given to the management claiming
that it tilt the balance of power of bargaining in favour of the management. The High
Court rejecting the contention held that where there has been proof of past violent
conduct on the part of the workmen, therefore, the police protection order is valid. It
further held that law requires resolution of disputes by taking recourse to lawful
methods instead of favouring pressurisation, gherao, obstruction or violence.

3. Forfeiture of Gratuity:

Section 4(6)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides for the forfeiture of
gratuity if an employee is terminated on the grounds of riotous or disorderly conduct
or any other act of violence.

In Management Of Tournamulla Estate v. Workmen(1973 Supreme Court), the case
pertained to a workman against whom a charge sheet was filed on the grounds of
riotous and disorderly behaviour as he had assaulted a tea maker inside the factory. A
departmental enquiry was set up and he was found guilty of misconduct by the
domestic tribunal. There was a clause in the scheme of gratuity which stated that if a
workman is dismissed for misconduct, labour court will have jurisdiction with regard
to the payment of gratuity. As a dispute arose about the payment of gratuity the
matter was referred to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court it was not disputed
that the dismissal of the workman was on account of misconduct consisting of riotous
and disorderly behaviour and assaulting a tea-maker. A Special Leave Petition was
filed against the order of the Labour Court.

The Supreme Court categorised misconduct into three categories, firstly where
involved no trial of discipline, secondly where there was some damage to the property
of the employer and thirdly where there was serious misconduct such as acts of
violence against management, or other employees or disorderly behaviour in or near
the place of employment. The Court held that in the first case there should be no
forfeiture of gratuity amount, in the second case there may be forfeiture equal to the
loss of the property and in the third case there can be forfeiture of gratuity in its
entirety. The Court was of the view that the case fitted into third category and


Bargaining
therefore allowed the forfeiture of gratuity in its entirety and set aside the order
passed by the Labour Court.

4. Compensation:

In Suresh Baburao Shinde and others v. State of Maharashtra and others (Bombay
High Court 1993), industrial workers resorted to violence in the factory premises and
outside causing economic loss by causing damage to the property. The trial Court
awarded a sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment along with the fine of
Rs.500.

The High Court in appeal held that the workers only need to serve rigorous
imprisonment for the period already undergone and instead of the remaining
imprisonment is liable to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000 failing which the workers will be
awarded the punishment of imprisonment of 3 years.

Have criminal proceedings been initiated for violence?
Which provisions of law have the perpetrators been
charged under by the complainants (in FIRs) and Police
(in chargesheets)?
The courts have often invoked the provisions of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to
as IPC). It is observed that the offence of conspiracy or unlawful assembly is read with
sections defining offences like criminal trespass, assault, etc. and the same are invoked in
the cases of violence.

In Mysore Machinery Manufacturers v. State Of Mysore (1967 Mysore High Court), a writ
petition was filed by the petitioner asking for removal of dismissed workmen from the
premises of the factory who were staying there unlawfully and without any authority
whatsoever. There were reasonable apprehensions of offences involving force and violence
as they had thrown stones and damaged the buildings before.

The Court referring to Section 341 and 447 of IPC which states the punishment for wrongful
restraint and criminal trespass respectively, ordered the police officers to remove the
dismissed workmen from the premises of petitioner. The court ordered that the petitioner
should be given exclusive control and possession of the premises.

In Indian Bank v. Federation Of Indian Bank (1981 Madras High Court), a case of wrongful
confinement was brought against the workmen under Section 341 of IPC which was upheld
by the Court. (Facts of the case have been mentioned above)

In Suresh Baburao Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and others (1994 Bombay High Court),
workmen resorted to violence and caused harm to police, company and the property. The
trial judge framed charges under the following sections of IPC r/w Section 120-B (which


Bargaining
provides for punishment for criminal conspiracy) and 149 (every member of unlawful
assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of IPC:

1. Section 147 - punishment for rioting.
2. Section 148 - provides for rioting armed with a deadly weapon.
3. Section 435 - mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to
the amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees.
4. Section 365 - kidnapping or abduction with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine
person.
5. Section 506 - punishment for criminal intimidation.
6. Section 342 - punishment for wrongful confinement.
7. Section 323 - punishment for causing voluntarily hurt.
8. Section 324 - voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
9. Section 332 - voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.
10. Section 353 - assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his
duty.
11. Section 326 - voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
12. Section 333 - voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty.
13. Section 307 - attempt to murder.

The trial judge convicted the workmen for the offences punishable under Section 120-B,
147, 427, 435, 342, 323, 353, 332 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Workmen
were awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years and were liable to pay a fine of Rs.
500/- failing which they would have to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month
for the major offence u/s 435 of IPC.

Have the office-bearers of the union been implicated as
conspirators if they were not directly a part of the
violence?
If a case pertains to criminal acts and a worker is present along with a office-bearer at the
site where the violent activities are being carried out then the office bearer will be equally
guilty as the worker who indulges in violence even if the office bearer doesn’t perform any
violent act. However, if a case is of civil nature, then no conspiracy can be upheld against all
the office bearers if only some of the workers indulge in violence.

In the above-mentioned Suresh Baburao Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and others(1994
Bombay High Court) case, some workers contended before the Court that they were only
present at the site and did not use any violence against the Police and company workers,
therefore, should be acquitted. The High Court held that once presence is established and
case pertains to unlawful assembly, it would be too much to accept that the accused
worker is an accused by-stander. All the accused workers were punished equally with
imprisonment and fine. These were criminal proceedings before Magistrates.


Bargaining
In Rohtas Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union & Ors.(1976 Supreme
Court), the workmen went on an illegal strike owing to the Trade Union rivalry due to which
losses were incurred by the Company. The arbitrators delivered their award and held that
the workmen participating in the strike were not entitled to wages for the strike period. The
arbitrators however, awarded huge compensation to the employers against the workmen
for the losses incurred by the employers during the strike period. The workmen challenged
the award as illegal and void by filing two writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court
upheld that part of the award which directed that the workmen participating in tho strike
were not entitled to wages. The High Court however, quashed the part of the award which
directed payment of compensation by the workers to the management.

In appeal by Special Leave, the Supreme Court dismissed this order of compensation which
was based on the rule of English law. It held that under rule of Common Law, if there is a
violation of norms related to Trade and Industry, it will amount to conspiracy. But in India,
the Constitution guarantees the right to form associations, not for gregarious pleasure, but
to fight effectively for the redressal of grievances and going on a strike even if illegal would
not constitute conspiracy as there is no concept of ‘tort conspiracy’ in India.

If an illegal strike happens and some workers destroy the plant and machinery willfully to
cause loss to the employer such workers will only be held liable for the injury so caused.
The strike may be illegal but if the object is to bring the employer to terms with the
employees or to bully the rival trade union into submission there cannot be an actionable
combination in tort. In the present case, the arbitrators did not investigate the object of the
strike. The arbitrators assumed that if the strike is illegal the tort of conspiracy is made out.
The counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that the object of the strike was inter-union
rivalry. There is thus a clear lapse in the law on the part of the arbitrators manifest on the
face of the award.

Suggestions to avoid strikes/violence
1. No issue should be left unaddressed for a longer span of time. This can build up
frustration amongst the workers leading to violence.
2. Create awareness about the consequences of violence and loss one will incur
personally if resorts to violence.
3. There should be redressal committees dealing with the issues of workmen.
4. If possible then help of a psychologist can also be taken to survey the mental state
and level of aggression amongst the employees.
5. Such conditions should be avoided which might create a deadlock between workmen
and employer.
6. A private detective can also be kept amongst labours to investigate within the internal
affairs of the company to ensure that things are alright.


Bargaining
After the episode of violence what can an employer do?

1. Analyse the reasons for violence so that it can be discouraged in future.
2. Initiate disciplinary proceedings against offenders and conspirators.
3. Initiate criminal proceedings by filing FIRs with the police.


How To Handle Labour Violence and Unrest-1595431858

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How To Handle Labour Violence and Unrest-1595431858

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRADE UNIONS,

Violence by labourers in the context of industrial disputes

What can be termed as violence in industrial disputes?

After the episode of violence what can an employer do?

You might also like