Court order on IOC workers
New Delhi   06-Sep-2011

Ruling that employees cannot misuse their fundamental right to protest so as to obstruct the firm's business, a Delhi court has permanently restrained IndianOil (IOC) workers from holding demonstration inside and in the vicinity of the company premises.

Additional District Judge Savita Rao stopped the IOC workers from holding demonstration in the vicinity of the firm's official premises permanently after an ex-parte hearing of the plea by the state enterprise for restraining the workers.
The IOC workers' union had stopped coming to the court after an interim order on 7 March 2002, had temporarily restrained the workers from holding any dharnas or creating obstructions within a radius of 150 metres of IndianOil Bhawan premises at Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi.

“It is correct that the employees' union has fundamental right to hold demonstration in a peaceful manner but by no stretch of imagination it can include hampering or obstructing in any manner the ingress into and outgress from the office complex of the Corporation or to interfere in its business.

“Accordingly, the defendants (trade union) are restrained from undertaking or holding or abetting or indulging in any dharnas, creating obstructions, gheraos or demonstrations within a radius of 150 metres of premises of IndianOil Bhawan, New Delhi,” the court said in its order on 2 September, reiterating its interim order. The Union government's largest public sector undertaking, IOC, had moved the court for permanently stopping its workers from demonstrating, organising gheraos or obstructing work and movement at IOC's office in the Capital.

The IOC had moved the court amid protests by its workers against departmental transfer of an employee. In their reply, the workers had earlier told the court that the transfer was in “utter violation” of the service rules as it was a transfer from one department to another and amounted to relocation and re-organisation which can be done only under urgent needs and that too with prior consent of the trade union and its local unit.

The workers' union had told the court that it had made various representations to the authorities and raised the issue in the firm's general body meeting but despite official assurances nothing materialised. It had denied before the court that it was obstructing the functioning of the company.

The PSU, however, had said the workers had started agitation after the transfer, even inside the building and were threatening to hold assemblies, stage dharnas inside and outside the office premises causing interference in the running of the business. It said the transfer does not amount to violation of rights.

It added that during demonstrations, the union would often damage the firm's property and interfere with its business. The company had claimed that the petition was filed after the workers had threatened to intensify their agitation.

The submissions made by the company were accepted by the court as they went un-rebutted in the absence of the workers' union or their counsel.