1. Sri Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General submits that the demands of the defendants have been under consideration of the plaintiff and that Justice Sri Mohan Committee has submitted its report in 1998 which has been accepted by the Central Government in 1999. Ad hoc payments against these demands have also been released Despite these facts a strike notice, dated 20 December, 1999, has been received from the defendants and negotiations are under way even pursuant to the receipt of the notice.
2. On receipt of the strike notice, the labour Conciliation Officer has issued notices to the parties calling upon them to appear and participate in the conciliation proceedings. The plaintiffs have presented themselves before the Conciliation Officer, but whilst the representatives of the workmen have appeared, the Officers Associations have neglected to make any representation. The last hearing was fixed for today. It is his submission that considering the fact that the strike, if commenced, would bring a halt to the functioning of the industry, and would cause wide spread inconvenience to public at large, precipitate action in this context ought not to have been taken by the defendants, especially since their demands are under active consideration of the plaintiff. Sri Rohtagi has further drawn my attention to the fact that the plaintiff is a public utility service as mentioned in the latest notification dated 4 January, 2000. This notification extends, once again, the application to the plaintiff of all previous Public utility service notification. It is his submission that since the plaintiff is a public utility service, the calling of strike is illegal as it contravenes the provisions of S. 22(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. I am satisfied that till the next date of hearing the interim injunction prayed for ought to be granted. Firstly, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case that the proposed strike would be illegal, being in contravention to S. 22(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act and also a misconduct as contemplated by the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980, of the plaintiff-Corporation. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs since the demands of the defendants is under active consideration and if the strike commences it will only exacerbate the situation and stultify a peaceful resolution of competing interests and the statutory conciliation proceedings. Keeping in perspective the ramifications of the strike, hasty and implacable action should not be taken by any party. Irreparable loss and injury is certain to visit not only the plaintiff but also the public at large, if the threatened strike is given affect to.
4. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing the defendants, their agents and representatives and the employees they represent are restrained from in any manner going on strike pursuant to the notice of strike, dated 20 December, 1999, served by the defendants or otherwise with effect from 11 January, 2000 as long as conciliation proceedings arising out of the said notice are not concluded.
Compliance of Order 39 rule 3, CPC be made within three days.