Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th February, 2021
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V. Shashank Kumar, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Santhosh Krishnan & Mr. Sayid Marzook, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present petition was filed by the All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) against the AIIMS Nurses Union challenging the notice issued by the Union for going on an indefinite strike w.e.f. 16th December,
2020. The Nurses Union had raised various demands and issues with the Petitioner which, according to it, were not addressed. Hence, the notice for a strike.
3. In the present petition, the ld. Single Judge had the occasion to consider the matter on 15th December, 2020 and after hearing ld. counsel for the Petitioner, the Court had directed that the Respondent would not go on strike till further orders. The extract of the said order reads:-
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the strike being in violation of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is also in violation of the judgment dated 20.05.2002 passed by this Court in Court on its own Motion v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, 2002 (64) DRJ 418 wherein, keeping in view the special circumstances of the petitioner as an 2021:DHC:714 institution and the sensitive nature of such super speciality referral hospital requiring uninterrupted and smooth functioning of each and every sphere of activity, it was inter-alia directed that no employee or staff or faculty member shall cease work for any reason whatsoever.
4. Keeping in view the submissions made and the assurance given by the petitioner that the grievance of the respondent is being considered and will be duly considered in an appropriate manner, the respondent is restrained from continuing with the strike till further order.”
4. Since then, the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Nurses Union. The submission of Mr. Santosh Krishnan, appearing for the Nurses’ Union is three fold:-
(i) That the maintainability of the writ petition is under doubt as no writ ought to be entertained against a trade union;
(ii) That the matter is already pending before the Conciliation
Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID” Act) and the said proceedings have been adjourned awaiting further orders of this writ petition. The said conciliation proceedings ought to continue;
(iii) No coercive measures ought to be taken by AIIMS against the nurses due to the one day strike.
5. He further points out that in W.P.(C) 6727/2018 titled Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd Vs. General Secretary (Staff Council) & Ors, initially an order was granted restraining the Union from going on strike. Finally, however, the Court had passed an order permitting the Union to avail its remedies.
6. On behalf of AIIMS, it is submitted that the merits of the grievances raised by Nurses has not been dealt with in the writ petition. The only relief which AIIMS is seeking is that the strike should not be given effect to considering the public nature of the function performed by AIIMS as also the nurses working therein. In so far as the Conciliation proceeding is concerned, the counsel for the AIIMS submits that he had no objection, if the conciliation proceedings go on.
7. Heard ld. counsels for the parties. In DMRC Ltd (supra), the ld. Single Judge had, initially vide order dated 28th January 2019 restrained the DMRC workers from going on strike. The operative portion of the said order reads:
8. The above writ petition was finally disposed of with the following directions:
9. In the case of DMRC the services were held to be ‘public utility services’. In the present case it is the AIIMS Nurses’ Union. There can be no doubt that healthworkers and nurses in general including nurses working at AIIMS have rendered yeoman’s service to society and patients, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their service has been selfless and prone to enormous risk for their own self and their families. Their necessity during the pandemic was indispensable. The order restraining them from going on strike is in fact a recognition of their importance to the patients and to the working of the hospital. In view of the role that nurses play, their grievances, if any, ought to be considered and redressed in a timely and expedient manner. The Nurses have some long pending grievances. Both sides ought to be reasonable and not take extreme positions while attempting redressal. The interim order has already restrained the Nurses’ Union from going on a strike. The matter is now pending before the Conciliator under the ID Act, the petition is disposed off with the following directions: i. The conciliation proceedings shall go on under the ID Act and shall be decided expeditiously and in any case within a period of three months from today. ii. The AIIMS Nurses Union assures this Court that they will not resort to a strike without following the procedure as prescribed under the ID Act. The Union, all its members and nurses shall be bound by this statement. iii. Subject to the said assurance given above being honoured by the Nurses Union, it is directed that the AIIMS shall not take coercive steps against the Petitioner for the Nurses having gone on strike under the impugned notice dated 16th December,
2020.
10. Once the conciliation proceedings conclude, if there is no resolution, both parties are left to avail of their remedies in accordance with law. The question of maintainability, raised, is left open to be gone into in an appropriate case.
11. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE FEBRUARY 24, 2021 mw/RC Corrected and released on 26th February, 2021