Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI)

Central University, New Delhi

Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia, gate 8

Assignment on:

Criminal and Civil Immunities to Trade Union Office Bearers and

Members

....................................

Subject: Labour Law

Submitted by: Adnan Aboobacker

Student ID: 20210150

Roll no: 9
Batch: Regular
5th semester
--------------------------------------------

Submitted to: Arif Wadood

Faculty of Law

JMI

Date of submission: 02.11.2023

1|Page
Contents
1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................3

Topic Understanding..............................................................................................................3

Significance of the Topic.......................................................................................................4

2. Trade Union Laws in India.................................................................................................5

Historical Development of Trade Union Laws in India.........................................................5

Main Legislation Governing Trade Unions: The Trade Unions Act, 1926...........................6

3. Criminal Immunities........................................................................................................6

The immunity does not extend to...........................................................................................7

Standard Chartered Bank V. Chartered Bank Employees Union (1996)...............................8

4. Civil Immunities..............................................................................................................10

Section 18 (1).......................................................................................................................11

Section 18 (2).......................................................................................................................11

Rohtas Industries Staff Union v. State of Bihar 1963.........................................................12

Case laws..................................................................................................................................13

Conclusion................................................................................................................................15

Bibliography.............................................................................................................................16

2|Page
 1. Introduction

Topic Understanding

Trade unions have undeniably played a pivotal and transformative role in the intricate
tapestry of India's labor landscape. These organized bodies of workers have emerged as
formidable advocates for the rights and welfare of the labor force, fundamentally shaping
labor relations, advocating for workers' rights, and fostering equitable employment practices.
Their influence transcends the confines of the workplace, extending into the broader socio-
economic fabric of the nation.

Trade unions in India are not merely social entities; they are legal entities operating
within the structured framework of Indian labor laws. This legal foundation provides them
with both rights and responsibilities, which are essential for their functioning and the
preservation of industrial harmony. These rights empower trade unions to negotiate with
employers on behalf of their members and address workplace grievances collectively, thereby
contributing significantly to the amelioration of working conditions and the elevation of labor
standards.

Within the Indian legal framework, trade unions have the power to collectively
bargain for better wages, improved working conditions, and more comprehensive benefits for
workers. This negotiation process is essential in leveling the playing field between labor and
management, ensuring that the interests of workers are adequately represented and protected.
It also acts as a catalyst for wage growth and the enhancement of employment terms across
various sectors of the Indian economy.

In addition to negotiating for improved working conditions, trade unions often engage
in policy advocacy, influencing the formulation of labor-related laws and regulations. Their
collective voice serves as a formidable driving force behind the introduction and amendment
of labor legislation, reflecting the changing dynamics of the workforce and addressing

3|Page
emerging labor market challenges. This involvement is pivotal in maintaining the relevancy
of labor laws, making them responsive to the evolving needs of the working population.

Moreover, trade unions in India also play a crucial role in resolving disputes and
grievances within the workplace. They serve as a buffer between workers and management,
helping to mediate conflicts and ensure that disputes are resolved in a fair and just manner.
This dispute resolution mechanism not only prevents labor unrest but also reinforces the
principles of equity and justice within the workplace.

However, it is essential to acknowledge that the rights and responsibilities of trade

unions are not absolute. They operate within the boundaries defined by Indian labor laws,
which establish the parameters for their activities. These laws serve as a regulatory
framework that balances the interests of workers, employers, and society as a whole. It is
imperative for trade unions to operate within the legal framework, respecting the rule of law,
and adhering to established norms to maintain their legitimacy and credibility.

Significance of the Topic

The topic of "Immunity from Civil Action and Criminal Conspiracy of Trade Union Laws in
India" holds paramount significance due to several reasons:

1. Protection of Workers' Interests: Trade unions serve as a vital safeguard for

workers, enabling them to collectively address issues such as fair wages, safe working
conditions, and reasonable working hours.

2. Conflict Resolution: The legal immunities and restrictions governing trade unions
are essential in facilitating peaceful negotiations, resolving disputes, and maintaining
industrial harmony.

3. Economic Impact: Trade unions have the power to influence economic stability, and
understanding their legal rights and limitations is crucial for business and government
stakeholders alike.

4. Balancing Rights and Responsibilities: The legal framework surrounding trade

unions strikes a balance between safeguarding workers' rights and ensuring that their
actions are carried out within the boundaries of the law.

4|Page
 5. Controversies and Challenges: Trade union activities have, at times, sparked
controversy and legal challenges, making it imperative to scrutinize the immunities
and regulations affecting them.

2. Trade Union Laws in India

Historical Development of Trade Union Laws in India
The historical development of trade union laws in India is a journey marked by
significant milestones, reflecting the country's evolving labor landscape, social changes, and
the struggle for workers' rights. Understanding this historical development provides valuable
insights into the legal framework that governs trade unions in India today.

In the pre-independence era, during the late 19th century, the first organized labor
associations began to emerge as workers united to address issues such as low wages, long
working hours, and poor working conditions. This period paved the way for the first Trade
Unions Act in 1926, which recognized the right of workers to form and join trade unions,
emphasizing the importance of collective bargaining and negotiations.

The post-independence period, starting from 1947, witnessed the constitutional guarantee of
fundamental rights, including the right to form associations and unions. The enactment of the
Industrial Disputes Act in the same year established mechanisms for dispute resolution and
further regulated trade union activities. Notable trade unions like the All India Trade Union
Congress (AITUC) and the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) gained
prominence during this time, influencing labor policy and the legal framework. Subsequent
amendments to the Trade Unions Act and the development of other labor-related legislation
underscore the ongoing evolution of trade union laws in India.

Main Legislation Governing Trade Unions: The Trade Unions Act, 1926
The primary legislation governing trade unions in India is the Trade Unions Act,
1926. This foundational statute provides the legal framework for the recognition, registration,
and operation of trade unions in the country. Under this act, trade unions are granted the legal
status necessary to represent the interests of workers and engage in collective bargaining. It
not only recognizes the right of workers to form and join trade unions but also outlines the
necessary procedures for the registration of these unions, setting the stage for their legitimacy
and lawful existence.

5|Page
The Trade Unions Act, 1926, also offers certain immunities and legal protections to trade
unions and their members when they engage in activities in furtherance of trade disputes.
These immunities are a crucial aspect of the legal landscape, as they shield trade unions from
civil actions for acts carried out during legitimate trade disputes, provided such acts are not
illegal or involve violence or property damage. This act remains a cornerstone of labor laws
in India, shaping the rights and responsibilities of trade unions and influencing labor relations
across various industries and sectors.

3. Criminal Immunities

Section 171 of the Act provides immunity from Criminal liability. According to this
provision, the office bearers of the registered trade unions are immune from criminal liability
for criminal conspiracy.

No office bearer or member of a registered trade union will be liable for the criminal
conspiracy u/s2 120B (2) of IPC, in respect to the legal agreements created by the members
for the furtherance of valid objects of a trade union as described u/s 15 of Trade Union Act 3,
except if the arrangement is a consent to submit an offence. Registered unions have certain
rights to do in furtherance of their trade disputes such as calling for strike and for that
purpose to persuade their members to abstain from work to break employment terms. But the
immunity cannot be claimed for an act that is an offence.

The immunity is, however, available only:

a) to office-bearers and members of a registered trade union

b) for agreements which further any object as is specified u/s 15 of Trade Union Act; and

c) which are not agreements to commit offences.

1
Trade Union Act 1926
2
Ie; Under section
3
S. 15 contains objects on which general funds of the Trade Union may be spent, For Example, the conduct of
trade disputes, compensation to members for loss arising out of trade disputes, etc.

6|Page
Trade Union may take different shapes in order to 'carry out the its objectives. For Example,
the members of the Trade Union may assemble at one place to deliberate or resolve hold
meetings and conferences and pass resolutions expressing their views on matters of
employment or nonemployment or terms of employment or conditions of labour, hold
demonstrations and strikes in support of their demands but they cannot indulge in violent and
illegal activities such as gherao, illegal detention.

The immunity does not extend to an agreement to commit an offence and intimidation,
molestation or violence amounting to an offence. A peaceful strike or gathering is permitted.
But when it resorts to unlawful confinement of persons or criminal trespass or there is
indulgence in criminal force or criminal assault or mischief to persons or property, there is no
exemption from liability ( R.S. Ruikar v. Emperor4).

In R. S. Ruikar case (1935) The accused who was President of a T. U. called for
volunteers to picketing. Two women were harassed by and driven by police. Then the
applicant brought her wife with instructions to beat anyone with slippers if anyone interfered
with her. Charges were framed for speeches on 3rd, 4th and 6th May 1934. The court held
that “Trade Unions are not liable civilly or criminally for conspiracy in furtherance of such
acts as trade union permits but there in nothing in the act which allows immunity from any
criminal offences. There is no immunity if the act falls within the scope of Section 7 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932.

Standard Chartered Bank V. Chartered Bank Employees Union (1996) – Even

assuming that the defendant union is entitled to go on strike, it cannot exercise the said right
so as to cause a nuisance to the employer. The rights provided does not allow holding a
meeting and shouting slogans premised legally occupied by another

In West India Steel Company Ltd. v. Azeez 1990 Kerala – a trade union leader
obstructed work inside the factory for 5 hours while protesting against the deputation of a
workman to work another section. It was held that while in a factory, the worker must submit
to the instructions given by his superiors. A trade union leader has no immunity against
disobeying the orders. A trade union leader or any worker does not have any right by law to
share managerial responsibilities. A trade union can espouse the cause of workers through

4
AIR 1935 Nag. 149

7|Page
legal ways but officials of a trade union cannot direct other workers individually or in general
about how to do their work. They do not have the right to ask a worker to stop his work or
otherwise obstruct the work of the establishment. An employer may deal with a person
causing obstruction in work effectively.

The last of the limitations on the scope of the immunity granted by section 17 raises
an issue relating to the very nature of the immunity. Section 120-A of the IPC defines
criminal conspiracy to mean: (i) an agreement between two or more persons to commit an
offence, i.e.in general,” an act which is punishable under IPC or any other law for the time
being in force and (ii) an overt act done in pursuance of an agreement between two or more
persons to do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means. IPC defines the word
“illegal” to include, inter alia, everything which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes
ground for a civil action.

Since workman’s use of instruments of economic coercion in an industrial dispute

involve breach of contract and ‘frequently injury to the property right of the employer both of
which are actionable, use of the instruments of economic coercion amounts to an illegal act
within the meaning of section 120-A read with section 43 of IPC. However, section 18 of the
Trade Unions Act, inter alia. provides: No suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable
in any. Civil Court against any registered Trade Union or any office bearer or member thereof
in respect of any act ‘done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which a
member of the Trade Union is a party on the ground only that such act induces some other
person to break a contract of employment, or that it is in interference with the trade, business
or employment of some other person or with the right of some other person to dispose of his
capital or of his labour as he wills.

Thus, u/s 17 the breach of contract and injury to employers’ property right cease to be
actionable and. therefore, does not amount to criminal conspiracy” as defined in section 120-
A read with section 43 of IPC. A question, therefore, arises, what is the criminal liability in
respect of which section 17 of the Trade Unions Act grants immunity? In considering the
matter it is relevant to note that section 17 does not grant a charter of liberty to commit an
offence, which is punishable with death, life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for a
term of two years or more. In fact, as the last words of section 17 of the Trade Union Act, of
1926 indicate that it does not insulate agreement to commit any offence whatsoever. Perhaps
the immunity is confined to agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be

8|Page
done, acts which are prohibited by law but which neither amount to an offence nor furnish
ground for civil action. Breach of contract does give rise to a civil cause of action, therefore,
under section 43 of IPC an agreement to commit breach of contract through withdrawal of
labour as an instrument of economic coercion in an industrial dispute, is a criminal
conspiracy. Further, so long as any law declares withdrawal of labour in breach of contract to
be an offence of a member of the consenting party takes any step to encourage, abet,
instigate, persuade, incite or in any manner in furtherance of the objective, the crime of
criminal conspiracy would have been committed. Finally, since criminal conspiracy is a
substantive offence punishable under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code it is doubtful if
section 17 grants immunity at all.

The term "illegal" applies to anything that constitutes a violation of the law, is
prohibited by legal regulations, or provides grounds for a civil lawsuit. If a person is legally
obligated to perform an action, it means they are legally required to do it, and not doing so
would be considered illegal.

By examining Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act in conjunction with Section 43 of

the Indian Penal Code, it seems that using labor withdrawal as a means of economic pressure
during an industrial dispute, even in violation of a contract, is not inherently illegal.
Consequently, an agreement between two or more workers who are members of a registered
trade union to use labor withdrawal as a tactic in an industrial dispute is not considered an
agreement to "perform or cause to be done an illegal act." Thus, it does not constitute a
criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A of the IPC. In this context, labor withdrawal in
breach of a contract does not create a basis for legal action in civil courts.

In the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Staff, the Calcutta High Court 5,
while interpreting the provisions of Section 17 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, determined
that members of a trade union are not protected for entering into agreements to commit
offenses. When a group of workers, whether large or small, collaborate to carry out an action
with a common objective, it can be deemed that they have an agreement to perform the
action. If the action committed is an offense, it is similarly considered as an agreement to
commit an offense.

In the event that a registered union engages in an unlawful strike under the Industrial
Dispute Act of 1947, there is no immunity from being charged with criminal conspiracy. This

5
AIR 1968 Cal 407, 72 CWN 440
9|Page
is because engaging in an illegal strike is punishable under Section 26 of the aforementioned
act, which is a specialized law. According to Section 40 of the IPC, an offense is defined as
an act punishable under the IPC or under any specialized or local law. Consequently,
immunity from criminal liability is only applicable when strikes are legal and conducted
peacefully

4. Civil Immunities

Trade union activities can, in certain cases, be considered criminal conspiracies and
may also lead to interference with an employer's business. When a trade union, its office
bearers, or its members act in a way that induces someone to break an employment contract
or interferes with the trade, business, or employment of another person, they can be held
liable for damages under the general laws of the land. However, the Trade Unions Act
provides immunity to them in such cases.

Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act grants immunity from civil liability in specific
situations to a registered trade union, its office bearers, or its members. It states that no civil
suit or legal proceeding can be initiated in any civil court against a registered trade union, its
office bearers, or its members concerning an act done in contemplation or furtherance of a
trade dispute in which a trade union member is involved. This immunity applies only if the
act's grounds are limited to inducing someone to break an employment contract, interfering
with another person's trade, business, or employment, or interfering with another person's
right to use their capital or labor as they wish.

The provision further stipulates that a registered trade union shall not be held liable in
any civil suit or legal proceeding in a civil court for any tortious act carried out in
contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute by an agent of the trade union if it is proven
that the agent acted without the knowledge of, or contrary to the express instructions given
by, the trade union's executive. This provision demonstrates that registered trade unions, their
office bearers, and members are protected from civil liability if their activities are related to a
trade dispute in which a trade union member is involved.

10 | P a g e
 Trade unions often use tactics to pressure their members or others to cease work or
break employment contracts in pursuit of better working conditions, which can lead to trade
disputes between workers and employers. Strikes are frequently employed in these situations,
which interfere with the rights of others to manage their capital or labor as they see fit. While
many of these activities may be legally actionable, the Trade Unions Act provides protection
to trade unions in such circumstances.

Section 18 (1)
No suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any civil court against any
registered trade union or any office-bearer or member thereof in respect of any act done in
contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the trade union is a
party on the ground only that such act induces some other person to break a contract of
employment, or that it is in interference with the trade business or employment of some
other person or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as
he wills.

Section 18 (2)
A registered trade union shall not be liable in any suit or other legal proceeding in
any civil court in respect of any tortuous act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade
dispute by an agent of the trade union if it is proved that such person acted without the
knowledge of, or contrary to express instructions given by the executive of the trade unions.

The above section does not afford immunity to the members or office bearers of a
trade ‘union for an act of deliberate trespass.? The immunity also cannot be availed of by
them for unlawful or tortuous act. Further such immunity is denied if they indulge in an
illegal strike. Moreover, the immunities enjoyed by the union do not impose any public duty
on the part of the union In general, a person is liable in torts for inducing another person to
breach his contract of employment or for interfering with the trade or business of another.
However, a trade union, its officers, and its members are immune from this liability provided
that such an inducement in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. Further, the
inducement should be lawful There is no immunity against violence, threats, or any other
illegal means. P Mukundan and others v. Mohan Kandy Pavithran 1992 Kerala – strike per se

11 | P a g e
is not an actionable wrong. Trade union, its officers, and its members are immune against
legal proceedings linked with the strike of workmen.

Rohtas Industries Staff Union v. State of Bihar 1963 6 – SC – certain workmen

went on an illegal and unjustified strike at the instance of the union. A question arose whether
the employers have any right of civil action for damages against the strikers. The arbitrator
heldthat the workers who participated in an illegal and unjustified strike, were jointly and
severelyliable to pay damages. On a writ petition the Patna High Court quashed the award of
the arbitrator and held that employers had no right of civil action for damages against the
employees participating in an illegal strike within the meaning of section 24 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. From this decision it is evident that section 18 grants civil immunity in
case of strike by the members of the trade union. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the
judgment of the high court on the ground that the claim for compensation and the award
thereof in arbitration proceedings were invalid and such compensation for loss of business
was not a dispute or difference between the employers and the workmen which was
connected with the employment or non-employment or terms of employment or with the
condition of labour of any person.

The remedy which is available to the employer u/s 26(1) of I.D. Act in case of an
illegal strike ie., to report or initiate a criminal proceeding, hence, a suit for damages is not
maintainable. The Supreme Court found itself not obliged to decide the question as to
whether the Patna High Court was right in relying on section 18 of the Act to rebuff the claim
for compensation because the learned judges In Jay Engineering Works v.Staff the Calcutta
High 7Court was invited to consider the question whether the protection under sections 17
and 18 of the Trade Unions Act can be availed of where workers resort to gherao.

The net result of the decision set out above is that Sections 17 and 18 of the Trade
Unions Act grant certain exemptions to members of a trade union but there is no exemption
against either an agreement to commit an offence or intimidation, molestation or violence,
where they amount to an offence. Members of a trade union may resort to a peaceful strike,
that is to say, cessation of work with the common object of enforcing their claims. Such
strikes must be peaceful and not violent and there is no exemption where an offence is
committed. Therefore, a concerted movement by workmen by gathering together either
outside the industrial establishment or inside within working hours is permissible when it is
6
AIR 1963 Pat 170, (1962)
7
AIR 1963 Pat 170, (1962)

12 | P a g e
peaceful and not violate the provisions of law. But when such a gathering is unlawful or
commits an offence then the exemption is lost. Thus, where it resorts to unlawful
confinement of a person’s criminal trespass or where it becomes violent and indulges in
criminal force or criminal assault or mischief to person or property or molestation or
intimidation, the exemption can no longer be claimed.

Case laws

Various Indian high courts have provided important interpretations of Section 18 of the Trade
Unions Act, 1926, which grants immunity from civil liability to registered trade unions, their
office bearers, and members for acts done in the furtherance of a trade dispute. These
interpretations clarify the conditions under which this immunity applies.

1. The Calcutta High Court, in Reserve Bank of India v. Ashis 8, emphasized that in order to
secure immunity under Section 18, any inducement or procurement in breach of employment
must be carried out through lawful means, not illegal or wrong means under other laws.

2. The Madras High Court, in Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd. v. Simpson Group Company
Union9, highlighted that it is not within the high court's purview to interfere with the
legitimate rights of labor to engage in strikes as long as they do not engage in unlawful and
tortious acts.

3. The Delhi High Court, in Indian Newspapers (Bom) Pvt. Ltd. v. T.M. Nagarajan 10, stated
that when allegations of violence are made by the management in a lawsuit supported by
documents, the protection of Section 18 may not be available, and the court will decide
whether any act of violence occurred in the lawsuit.

8
CASE NO. 2735(W) of 1966
9
(1979) IILLJ 284
10
1987 (15) DRJ 212, 1988

13 | P a g e
4. The Gujarat High Court, in Ahmedabad Textile Research Association v. ATIRA
Employees Union11, affirmed that the civil court should not interfere with the legitimate
rights of workers to pursue their demands through strikes or agitation, as long as they avoid
engaging in unlawful, tortious, and violent activities. Peaceful picketing is protected under
Section 18, but any actions resulting in a public or private nuisance, intimidation, gherao, or
wrongful confinement are considered unlawful. Threats of violence or any other illegal
threats that create fear in a reasonable person's mind also render picketing unlawful.

In summary, these court rulings clarify the limitations and conditions surrounding the
immunity provided by Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, ensuring that it applies to lawful
trade union activities carried out in the furtherance of trade disputes, while unlawful or
violent actions are not protected.

11
(1994) IILLJ 912 Guj

14 | P a g e
Conclusion

In conclusion, the examination of criminal and civil immunities provided to trade union (TU)
office bearers and members offers a nuanced perspective on the legal framework surrounding
labor disputes and collective actions. Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, stands as a
crucial provision that shields registered trade unions, their office bearers, and members from
civil liability for actions taken in the contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. This
immunity is intended to protect the rights of workers to pursue their demands and engage in
lawful trade union activities without the threat of legal repercussions, as long as they remain
within the bounds of legality and refrain from violent or tortious behavior. The key takeaway
from this exploration is that the legal system in India recognizes the importance of preserving
the balance between the rights of labor and the interests of employers, ensuring that while
workers can exercise their legitimate rights to protest and strike, they must do so in a manner
that complies with the law.

Furthermore, the cases cited in the assignment illustrate that this immunity is not absolute and
is contingent upon adherence to lawful means. Courts have emphasized that any actions
involving illegal or wrongful conduct may render the immunity ineffective. Therefore, it is
essential for TU office bearers and members to exercise their rights responsibly and
peacefully, mindful of the legal boundaries, to fully benefit from the protections granted
under the Trade Unions Act. This body of law, which recognizes the significance of trade
unions in shaping the labor landscape, highlights the importance of striking a balance
between the collective power of workers and the legal constraints imposed on their actions to
ensure a fair and just industrial environment.

15 | P a g e
Bibliography

1. A. J. Fonseca: Wage Determination and Organised Labours in India, Oxford

University Press, New York.

2. A. N. Buch, S.T. Salilallt & Mehta. S.S.: Sweat of Labour Economics for Trade Unions,

Himalaya Publishing House, Bombay.

3. C. B. Mamoria: Dynamics of Industrial Relations in India, Himalaya Publishing

House, Mumbai.

4. C. R. Mc Connell & S. L. Brue: Contemporary Labour Economics, Mc Grow- Hill,

New York.

5. Dr. S.R. Myneni: Labour Laws, Asia Law House, Hyderabad.

6. Dr. T. N. Bhagoliwal: Economics of Labour and Industrial Relations, Sahitya Bhavan

Publications, Agra.

7. E. A. Ramaswamy: The Worker and Trade Union, Allied Publishers, New Delhi.

16 | P a g e