M/S. ORCHID EMPLOYEES' UNION & ORS. versus M/S. ORCHID CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 25-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 5 S.C.R. 490 
A 
M/S. ORCHID EMPLOYEES' UNION & ORS. 
,,.._ 
\/. 
M/S. ORCHID CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2096 of 2008) 
B 
MARCH 25, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND 
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws - Stike by labour union - Interim injunction 
c restraining the union and its members from certain activities 
sought by the management- During pendency of the litigation 
Labour and Employment Department directing the 
management to provide work to the workers who call off the 
strike - Held: In view of the order of Labour Department, appeal 
D became infructuous. 
Respondent-company filed Interlocutory application 
in a suit before Muns if Court, seeking to restrain appellant 
No.1-Union and its members from doing certain activities 
till the disposal of the suit. The application was dismissed. 
E Revision Petition against the order was allowed by High 
Court. Hence the present appeal. In the meantime an order 
was issued by Labour and Employment (A2) Department 
whereby the Management of the respondent-company 
was directed to provide work to all the workers who called 
F off the strike. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In view of the order issued by Labour and 
Employment (A - 2) Department whereby the respondent-
G 
management was directed to provide work to all the 
workers who called off the strike, nothing further survives 
to be done in the appeal. [Paras 5 and 6] (492-F, G & H; 
493-A, B & C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
H 
490 
M/S. ORCHID EMPLOYEES' UNION & ORS. v. 
491 
M/S. ORCHID CHEM. & PHARM. LTD. [PASAYAT, J.) 
-
2096 of 2008. 
A 
·From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2007 ·of 
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP (PD) Nos. 1036-
1038 of 2007. 
Dayan Krishnan, Samrat Singh and Nikhil Nayyar for the 
B 
·,I 
Appellants. 
! 
R. Viduthalat, V.G. Pragasam and S.J. Aristotle for t~e 
Respondent. 
''-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the 
Civil Revision Petition filed by the respondent. By the common 
D 
order three Civil Revision Petitions were disposed of. The Civil 
Revision Petitions were filed against a common order of 
dismissal in I.A. Nos.1489 to 1491 of 2006 in OS No. 360 of 
2006 dated 13.3.2007 by the Learned District Munsif 
Madurantagam filed by the respondent to restrain the present 
E 
appellant No.1-Union and its members from assembling within 
100 meters of the boundary of its company and restraining them 
from obstructing the ingress and egress of vehicles carrying 
raw material and finished products, staff bus and other vehicles 
into the respondent Company and also obstructing loyal workers, 
F 
foreign customers and other visitors from entering into the 
... 
premises of the company and getting out of the same till the 
disposal of the suit. 
3. The High Court held that prima facic there was 
contravention of Section 22 of the Trade Union's Act, 1926 (in 
short the 'Act'). It was noted that the formation of the appellant 
G 
No.1-Union was challenged and cancellation proceedings were 
~ 
pending before Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai. The 
High Court felt that it would be in the interest of the parties to 
pursue their remedy before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, 
H 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. • 
A Chennai arid get the grievance redressed. It was further 
observed that if that could not be done, the matter should· be 
referred to Industrial Tribunal and till then the status.quo should 
be maintained. For the reasons stated above, all the Civil 
Revision Petitions were allowed, setting aside the orders 
B passed in the respective I.A. Nos. 1489to1491 of2006 in O.S. 
No. 360 of 2006 dated 13.3.2007 by the learned District Munsif, 
Madurantagam. 
4. The present appellants and members of 17th respondent 
Union (before the High Court) were restrained to assemble 
C within 100 meters of the boundary of the factory premises of the 
respondent company and raise slogans or obstruct the ingress 
and egress of the vehicles carrying raw materials and finished 
products, staff bus and other vehicles into factory premises, and 
obstruct the loyal workers, foreign customers and other visitors 
D from entering into the respondent company and getting out of 
the same till the disposal of the suit or the conciliatio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.