Click here to read the complete article: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140181/
In Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1968 Cal 407, popularly known as the “Gherao Case,” the Calcutta High Court examined the legality of the practice of gherao adopted by workmen during industrial disputes and the extent of protection available to trade union activities under Indian law. The case arose when employees of Jay Engineering Works, protesting against certain management decisions, surrounded and confined managerial personnel and officers within the factory premises for prolonged periods, preventing them from leaving and thereby subjecting them to wrongful restraint and confinement.
The dispute also involved the validity of certain circulars issued by the Government of West Bengal which appeared to recognize or tolerate such forms of labour protest as part of legitimate trade union activity. The employers challenged these circulars and contended that the State Government was encouraging unlawful conduct under the guise of protecting labour rights. The Calcutta High Court held that while workers possess fundamental rights to organize, demonstrate, and engage in lawful trade union activities, such rights do not extend to acts that constitute criminal offences such as wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, criminal trespass, intimidation, or violence.
The Court emphasized that a gherao resulting in the physical confinement of managerial staff cannot be regarded as a legitimate trade union weapon merely because it is used in furtherance of an industrial dispute. The Court further clarified that the immunities granted under Sections 17 and 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 are limited in scope and do not protect union members from liability for criminal acts committed during labour agitations. It was observed that no government circular or executive instruction could legalize conduct that is otherwise prohibited by criminal law, and the police authorities remained under a legal duty to prevent and investigate offences irrespective of the industrial context in which they occurred.
The judgment drew a distinction between peaceful collective bargaining and coercive tactics that infringe upon the personal liberty of others, holding that industrial action must remain within the boundaries of law. The case is regarded as a landmark decision in Indian labour jurisprudence because it established that trade union rights are not absolute, that criminal acts committed during industrial disputes cannot claim statutory immunity merely because they arise out of a labour movement, and that the right to protest must be balanced against the rights to personal liberty, movement, and protection under criminal law. The decision continues to be cited for the principle that a gherao involving wrongful confinement is unlawful and that legitimate trade union activities cannot override the operation of the general criminal law.
Leave a Reply