CASE SUMMARY : B.R. SINGH V.

UNION OF INDIA1

Facts:

 The present petition consists of 3 petitions filed by the workers of the Trade Fair
Authority of India (hereinafter "TFAI") regarding their termination by TFAI. The
demands were raised by the Trade fair Authority Employees' Union (hereinafter
"Union").
 First Writ Petition: The timeline regarding the demands raised by the Union is as
follows:
 Demands regarding housing facilities, regularisation of atleast 50% of casual or
daily rated employees and upward revision of the salaries and allowances of the
workers of TFAI was raised for the first time with the Chief General Manager on
29 August 1986.
 The Union contended that they were given various assurances regarding their
demands, yet no concrete steps had been taken.
 They submitted a letter dated 29 October for implementation of these assurances
by 15 November. To this the General Manager again communicated that it would
be ensured that the Standing Committee took up the issue on a priority basis. The
same was not done by the end of November 1986.
 However, the General Meeting was held, wherein it was decided that a strike will
be conducted on 21 January. This was also communicated to the management.
 Consequently, the President, Vice-President and the Executive Members of the
Union were suspended by the management. When this was protested by the
workers, all the remaining office bearers were suspended.
 The strike was called off on 24 January, since the President of India was to
inaugurate a fair on 25 January.
 On 3March 1987, the services of all the office bearers of the Union was
terminated. Such termination was done in accordance with the TFAI Rules, as
per which penalties could be imposed without conducting any inquiry. The Board
of TFAI justified not conducting any inquiry due to the reasons: (i) The workers
themselves had threatened the Disciplinary Authority (ii) They had terrorised the
witnesses; and (iii) a general atmosphere of indiscipline had been created.
 Second Writ Petition: The second writ petition was by an employee of TFAI who was a
casual labourer of TFAI since 1982. He was selected for the post of a driver. However,
his services were also terminated without any reason, with no opportunity of hearing or
enquiry.
 Third Writ Petition: This was concerning 2 security guards whose services were
terminated on the allegation that they refused to give false evidence against their co-
workers who were active members of the Union.

1 (1989) 4 SCC 710.

Contention of the Union (Respondent):

 The Union responded that there was an overall atmosphere of insubordination,

indiscipline & the authorities and people were threatened.
 At the meeting, which was unauthorised, various provocative speeches were made by the
members and hence, the situation required immediate firm action.
 The Union even had to seek an injunction restraining the members from adopting such a
conduct during the coming fair, which was to be attended by various VIPs.
 It was based on the above existing situation, that the services had been terminated
without conducting any departmental enquiry.
 First Petition: The proposal for regularisation of employees was pending before the
Standing Committee & later with the with the Internal Works Study Unit in the Ministry
of Commerce and their report was awaited. Thus, the TFAI had been sympathetic in
their approach.
 Second Petition: The services of the driver had to be terminated since it was known
that he had been convicted under the Motor Vehicles Act. Moreover, he had been
offered only a 'provisional post'.
 Third Petition: The services of the guards had been terminated on account of lack of
their co-operation.

Proceedings before the Labour Court:

 Noted that denial of work to 243 casual workers was unjustified.

 First Petition: Mere participation in strike was not enough a ground to order large scale
suspension or termination of employees.
 Second Petition: Services of the driver had been terminated illegally.
 Third Petition: Termination of their services was also considered to be illegal.
 The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the strike was legal and justified, peaceful
and nonviolent and for a duration of only three days.

Proceedings before the Supreme Court:

 It noted that the decision for regularisation was pending before the Internal Works Study
Unit, due to which the workers became restive.
 However, the court also noted the importance of strikes by a Trade Union and said "The
strength of a trade union depends on its membership. Therefore, trade unions with
sufficient membership strength are able to bargain more effectively with the
managements. This bargaining power would be considerably reduced if it is not
permitted to demonstrate. Strike in a given situation is only a form of
demonstration." It opined that such a demonstration was the right of all workers.
 It also noted that such a right is subject to restriction in the Industrial Disputes Act, to
be found in Sections 10(3), 10A(4A), 22 and 23.
 Regarding Section 22, the Court noted that it is a restriction applicable in 'public utility
services', defined in Section 2(n). The court here, without assigning any reason, merely
said that "indisputably TFAI does not fall within that expression".
  Even though the Union acted in a haste, their motive was not oblique. The management
of the TFAI was only concerned about its reputation. Thus, it said " The interest of the
institution must be paramount to all concerned including the workmen."

Order of the Supreme Court:

 The orders regarding termination of services of workmen to be set aside.

 The workers as well as the driver should be reinstated with back wages. To this end, the
management of the TFAI was ordered to make a seniority list of casual workers. Post
this, it was required to absorb 85 of the senior most employees.
 In the case of one of the security guards, in light of his misbehaviour, he shall be
reinstated without back wages.