M/S. POWERGEAR LIMITED, BENGALURU Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJAGOPALANAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Company is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent-jurisdictional police to evacuate all the workmen inside the factory premises of the petitioner located at plot No. 15/6E, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru and to ensure that no outsider or workmen forcibly enters the factory premises.

(2.) The petitioner which is a public limited company has its factory at the place as mentioned above. The case of the petitioner is that as it had incurred cash losses for three consecutive years ending 31.03.2014 totalling in all Rs.11.71 crores were compelled to lease the factory to one M/s. Expraco Composites India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru through a lease deed dated 15.03.2015. In terms of the agreement the petitioner terminated the services of all its employees by giving them one month notice period and 15 days wages as compensation, consequent on the transfer of management in terms of Sec. 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act for short). The petitioner contends that though the workmen who are the members of the 2nd respondent - Union received the settlement amount and encashed the cheques, thereafter resorted to offences such as forcibly entering the factory premises and living inside the factory premises without allowing the petitioners, its Officers or the lessee and its Officers to enter into the factory premises. In that view the petitioner wrote letters dated 31.07.2015 and 23/31.07.2015 to the 1st and 2nd respondents. The 1st respondent did not provide any assistance to the petitioner. It is in that view the petitioner is before this Court seeking appropriate direction in that regard.

(3.) The 2nd respondent-Union has filed a detailed objection statement claiming with regard to its right to carry on its Trade Union activities and the protection available under Sec. 18 of the Trade Unions Act (TU Act for short). It is in that light contended that since the factory has been illegally closed the 2nd respondent has protested the same and has been peacefully carrying out its agitation. Insofar as the lease as claimed by the petitioner it is disputed by them and it is contended that the petitioner is an export oriented company and in order to take advantage of the avoidance of statutory duties the work is being diverted from Bangalore Factory to Chennai to the detriment of the workmen who are the members of the 2nd respondent-Union. It is their case that the present transaction cannot be considered as a transfer of undertaking but on the other hand it is an illegal closure without compliance of the provisions contained in Sec. 25-0 of the I.D. Act. In that view they have raised an Industrial dispute relating to the same which is referred to Industrial Tribunal through the order dated 17.08.2015 and is pending in I.D. No.129/2015. Since the petitioner in the meanwhile was seeking to alter the situation, the 2nd respondent-Union and its members have resorted to the right available both under the ID Act as well as T.U. Act.