BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT

IN THE MATTER OF:

TRADE UNION OF MALALA INDUSTRY …PETITIONER

VERSUS

MALALA INDUSTRY ...RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Counsel Appearing on behalf of the RESPONDENT

 [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

ISSUES

SUMMARY OF FACT

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

PRAYER
STATUTES:

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

2. FACTORIES ACT, 1948.

3. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947.

4. PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936.

5. THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1932.

6. THE MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT, 1961.

BOOKS:

1. 2 H.M.SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (Universal Law

Publishing Co.Pvt. Ltd. 4th ed. 2005).

2. 78 THE HALSBURY’S LAWS OF ENGLAND, (Lexis Nexis 5th ed. 2018).

3. DR. V.G. GOSWAMI, LABOUR & INDUSTRIAL LAWS (Central Law

Agency 10th ed.2015).
 INDEX OF AUTHORITY

B.R.Singh v. Union of India, (1989) 1 S.C.R. 257.

Bank of India v. T.S. Kelawala And Ors. With. U.,1990) 3 S.C.R. 214.

Basant Kumar v. Eagle Rolling Mills, A.I.R. (1964) S.C.1260.

Billion Plastics P. Ltd v. Dyes And Chemical Workers Union, (1983) 2 BomC.R. 25.

Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkarni,

A.I.R.1983S.C. 109.
 ABBREVATIONS

S.C. SUPREME COURT

S.C.C. SUPREME COURT CASES

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTER

Bom. BOMBAY

L.R. LAW REPORTER

U.O.I UNION OF INDIA

v. VERSUS

ID INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

u/s UNDER SECTION

UP UTTAR PRADESH

Del DELHI
.
Co. Company.

A.C. APPEAL CASES

.
P.C. PRIVY COUNCIL
THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has humbly approached the Hon’ble High Court under Art.226 of the
Constitution

“Article 226- Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers,

throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to

any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within

those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas

corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for

the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other

purpose

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any

Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court

exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of

action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding

that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is

not within those territories”.

The Petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court.
ISSUES

1.Whether the counter claim petition filed by the Malala Industrial Sector is maintainable?

Yes, respondent files counter claim petition is maintainable.

2.Whether a person who is working in industry for 3 years, can be denied the rights as

defined u/s 9 of The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (i.e. leave for miscarriage) & then

financial assistance?

No, OPD [opposite party denied]

3.Whether there has been violation of right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 or not?

No, OPP [Opposite party proved

 THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

Zara, the citizen of Estancia in the country Asiana, married to Altaf was working in Thor
Industrial Sector as a laborer for last 39 months. Thor Industrial Sector was one the most
successful industries in Asiana and contributes to the economic and Social welfare. i.e 20th
February 2022. Her Supervisor, Mr. Arushi Iyer instructed her to shift some Grain bags
which were lying outside, into the warehouse of the factory.

2. She requested her supervisor to assign her some other work, since she is in family way
(three months pregnancy) and her doctor had advised her not to lift heavy weighing
things. The supervisor was adamant and insisted to her that it was an order from the
superiors; disobeying will result in removing her from the services as her employment was
not confirmed. Even after all the instructions, she was not willing to lift the bags, therefore
the Supervisor coerced her to complete the work before 6:00 PM.

3. She had no other alternative than to execute the work assigned to her and at about
5:45 pm she was feeling tired and was also having pain in her lower abdomen. She
approached the dispensary of the factory outlet and the doctor gave her the option of
either taking some pain killer tablets (knowing the fact that she was pregnant) or resting
for an hour. However she decided to take tablets and thereafter continued with her
normal work, as the pain had subsided for a few hours. When she left for her residence,
she could again feel the lower abdominal pain which became unbearable. Then her
Husband and Father-in-law took her to the nearby hospital.

4. She was examined by the Gynecologist Dr. Shraddha and after preliminary examination,
the Doctor advised Mr. Altaf to immediately admit her to the hospital. However, the
process of miscarriage has already started and she lost the child due to imminent
abortion. Her Gynaecologist identified the reasons for miscarriage to be the after effects of
the pills taken by her at the factory and lifting of the heavy bags.

5. A year before this, she had suffered a miscarriage. After a month, when her health
improved, her husband had an altercation over the miscarriage issue stating that she
cannot become a mother. She moved to her parents’ house who were quite poor and not
in a position to maintain her. After all this difficulties, Zara United with her husband on
17th November 2021, After recovering from the 2nd miscarriage, Zara reported for duty on
15th March 2022, her supervisor informed her thathad been replaced and her services
were not required anymore. Even she has not been paid any of her dues.

6. The news of this occurrence reached the registered Trade Union in the Thor Industrial
Sector. The trade union called an emergency meeting and decided to hold a silent strike on
the premises of the factory. The workers went on a strike and the negotiations between
the management and the trade union failed, leading to a lock out decided by the
management.

7. Thereafter when the Trade Union found out that Zara had taken the pills given by the
doctor who was aware that she was pregnant, few Union members were agitated by this
gross violation of labour laws. The next day the few angry union members started
throwing stones at the bungalow
.

of Mr. Arushi Iyer and even broke the windows of his office. Arushi Iyer was provoked

thisand Since he had a good relationship with the President of the regional ruling political

party, he was able to hire bouncers who used coercive force including lathi-charge on the

workers, which further deteriorated the situation.

8. The Trade Union filed a suit for violation of constitutional principles under Article 21 and

noncompliance of the standards set for the workers in factories and use of bouncers. In

return Malalaa Industrial Sector filed a counter suit for attack on its supervisor and illegal

strike held by the Trade Union as the industry deals with food items and is classified as

essential services

9. The court combined both the petitions and set the date for hearing on 25th August

2022..For administrative purposes, the Trade Union will be Petitioners and Malalaa

Industry wil be Respondents.

 STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS

o Whether Malalaa Industrial Sector filed a counter suit for attack on its supervisor

and illegal strike held by the Trade Union as the industry deals with food items and

is classified as essential services

o .Whether The trade union called an emergency meeting and decided to hold a silent

strike on the premises of the factory.

o Whether The Trade Union filed a suit for violation of constitutional principles

under Article 21 and noncompliance of the standards set for the workers in

factories and use of bouncers is relevant

o If Trade Union found out that Zara had taken the pills given by the doctor who was

aware that she was pregnant, few Union members were agitated gross violation of

labour laws.

o That the strike by the workers is justified and the lock-outs on part of the factory is

not justified.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

o Whether Malalaa Industrial Sector filed a counter suit for attack on its supervisor

and illegal strike held by the Trade Union as the industry deals with food items and

is classified as essential services

Yes because The Trade Union filed a suit for violation of

constitutional principles under Article 21 and noncompliance of the standards set for the

workers in factories and use of bouncers. In return Malalaa Industrial Sector filed a

counter suit for attack on its supervisor and illegal strike held by the Trade Union as the

industry deals with food items and is classified as essential services

o .Whether The trade union called an emergency meeting and decided to hold a silent

strike on the premises of the factory.

. Yes because The news of this occurrence reached the registered Trade Union in

the Thor Industrial Sector The workers went on a strike and the negotiations between the

management and the trade union failed, leading to a lock out decided by the

management.

It has been observed by the Supreme Court in M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd v.

Workmen of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., that a Public Utility service, the notice

contemplated by Section 22 of the Act is necessary and must have been given. Such a

notice having not been given, the lockout was held to be clearly illegal under Section
 24 of Industrial Disputes Act. No person employed in a public utility service shall go on

Lockout in breach of contract.

o Whether The Trade Union filed a suit for violation of constitutional principles

under Article 21 and noncompliance of the standards set for the workers in

factories and use of bouncers is relevant

No, this petition is not maintainable, therec are no any relevant facts

which can express the violastion of constitution rights.Case wil explain the relevant

fact for violation of right

In the case of Consumer Education & Researcher Center & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors,41

Art. 21 includes, Right to livelihood, better standard of living, hygienic conditions at the

work place and leisure facilities and opportunity to eliminate sickness. Medical facility is

therefore a Fundamental Right and human right to protect the health. There is also

violation of Art.21 by use of bouncers as they have used lathi-charge. Lathi-charge may

result into injuries to number of innocent persons which deprives them of their right to

life and personal liberty.

o If Trade Union found out that Zara had taken the pills given by the doctor who was

aware that she was pregnant, few Union members were agitated gross violation of

labour laws.

No, She had no other alternative than to execute the work assigned to

her and at about 5:45 pm she was feeling tired and was also having pain in her

lower abdomen. She approached the dispensary of the factory outlet and the
 doctor gave her the option of either taking some pain killer tablets (knowing the

fact that she was pregnant) or resting for an hour. However she decided to take

tablets

24
In Chief engineer Chepauck Madras v. N. Natesan25 and

Management of Crompton Engineering Co. (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. V.

Presiding officer Additional Labour Court26 held that even a temporary

employee falls within the definition of workmen. So from the above cases we can

say that Shabina comes under the definition of workmen. Denial of such leave is

violation of Article 14.

. In the case of Neera Mathur v. Life Insurance of Corporation of

India & Ors, it was held that a corporation cannot discharge a woman from

service during period of probation30. The termination was also bad in law in view

of provisions of The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which provided that where a

human absence herself from work in accordance with the provisions of the act it

shall be unlawful for the employer to discharge or dismiss her on account of

such an absence.31 Therefore she shall be entitled to the benefits of the Act.

o That the strike by the workers is justified and the lock-outs on part of the factory is

not justified

Strike has been defined in section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1961 as under: “strike” means a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any

industry acting in combination or a concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common

understanding, of any number of persons who are or have been so employed to

continue to work or to accept employment.

Section 2A58 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Dismissal,

etc. of an individual workman to be deemed to be an Industrial Dispute. A strike is

considered justified if it is in connection with a current labour dispute or directed

against an unfair labour practice of the employer.59 Though under the constitution

right to strike is not a Fundamental Right, the said right is a well recognised right

of the workers. It is not that every strike is illegal. In a democratic state workman

have every right to withhold labour in support or their demands and therefore, a

legal strike is legitimate weapon in matters of industrial relation.

In B.R.Singh v. Union of India,60 it was held that the strike is a form of

demonstration.

It is a safety valve in industrial relations when properly resorted to.61 The Court

said whether a strike is justifiable or not depends upon the facts of the case and

has to be Determines on case tobasis.

PRAYER

1. That the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable,

2. That the zara shall not be granted leave for miscarriage and financial assistance,

3. That Malal Industry is not liable to pay compensation,

4. That the strike is not justified and lockout on part of factory is not justified,

It is respectfully submits to Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the
Best Interests of Justice, Fairness, Equity &