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

                          (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)
                          MARCH 25, 2008
B
           [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
    became infructuous.
D
         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
  off the strike.
F
         Disposing of the appeal, the Court
       HELD: In view of the order issued by Labour and
  Employment (A - 2) Department whereby the respondent-
  management was directed to provide work to all the
G 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.

                 ·From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2007 ·of
                                                                                 A

            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,
            foreign customers and other visitors from entering into the F
...         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       G
            short the 'Act'). It was noted that the formation of the appellant
            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 conciliation
  proceedings, whichever is earlier. It was, however, observed,
  that the above interim injunctions will not in any way interfere
  with the present appellant's rights to strike or with the exercise
E of any other rights conferred by the Industrial Disputes Act or
  the Trade Unions Act. Though the workers cannot be prevented
  from gathering or picketing beyond the limit of 100 meters, such
  assembling and picketing were to be peaceful and lawful and
  without in any manner violating the directions given.
F         5. Though various points were urged in support of the
    appeal, it was pointed out on 6.12.2007 an order was issued
    by the Labour and Employment (A2) Department inter alia stating
    as follows:
          "And whereas the Government are of the opinion that for
G
          the purpose of maintaining employment and industrial
          peace and to prevent continuing industrial unrest in the
          aforesaid establishment which is a public Utility Service
          engaged in the manufacture of drugs and pending
          adjudication of the demands referred to the Industrial
H
       M/S. ORCHID EMPLOYEES' UNION & ORS. v.                   493


-    M/S. ORCHID CHEM. & PHARM. LTD. [PASAYAT, J,.]

         Tribunal, it is necessary to make an order.
         Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
                                                                       A


         Section 1OB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7, the
         Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following order:
         "The Marragem~nt of Orchid Chemicals and                      B
         Pharmaceuticals Limited shall provide work to all the
         workers who called off the strike on 26.6.2007 except
         those workmen against whom criminal complaints were
         filed with police by the management."

          6. In view of the aforesaid position, we find that nothing   C
    further survives to be done in the appeal which is accordingly
    disposed of.
    K.K.T.                                    Appeal disposed of.