Immunity (Civil & Criminal) Extent

Introduction	jurisprudence
Provisions	section 17 & 18 of Trade Unions Act, section 120B of IPC
Case laws	R.S. Ruikar v. Emperor AIR 1935 Nag. 149 Rohtas Industries Staff Union v. State of Bihar AIR 1963 Pat. 170 Jay Engineering Works Ltd. V State of West Bengal Simpson and Group Companies Workers and Staff Union versus Amco Batteries Ltd.
Conclusion	present problem

What is Immunity?

Immunity means being protected from harm, liability, or an external threat. In general terms, it refers to state of protection or exemption. It can manifest in different contexts, such as legal, political, or medical fields.

Immunity under Indian labour law, primarily enshrined within the Trade Unions Act, 1926, provides specific protections to registered trade unions and their members from certain civil and criminal liabilities arising from actions taken in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. These provisions aim to facilitate effective collective bargaining and legitimate trade union activities without the undue threat of legal repercussions. However, these immunities are not absolute and are subject to stringent conditions and limitations.

There are two types of immunity:

1. Criminal : Protects office-bearers and members of registered trade unions from charges of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.   This immunity applies to agreements made between members for the purpose of furthering any of the legitimate objectives of the trade union as specified in Section 15 of the Trade Unions Act.
2. Civil : Protects registered trade unions, their office-bearers, and members from certain civil suits or legal proceedings for acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.

CRIMINAL IMMUNITY

Section 17. Criminal conspiracy in trade disputes.—

No office-bearer or member of a registered Trade Union shall be liable to punishment under sub-section (2) of section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), in respect of any agreement made between the members for the purpose of furthering any such object of the Trade Union as is specified in section 15, unless the agreement is an agreement to commit an offence.

Section 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.–
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, ²[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]

Section 17 addresses criminal immunity. It states that acts committed by a trade union to achieve their objectives and resulting in conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) will be immune from criminal liability, provided the conspiracy carries a maximum imprisonment of six months. However, any other offenses committed by the trade union in pursuit of their objectives will still be punishable, and they will not receive any criminal immunity for those acts.

Essentials to claim criminal immunity

1. Registered Trade Union: The protection is exclusively available to office-bearers and members of unions duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
2. Legitimate Trade Union Object: The agreement must be demonstrably aimed at furthering an objective listed in Section 15 of the Act, which typically includes regulating relations between workmen and employers, or between workmen and workmen, or imposing restrictive conditions on trade or business.
3. Agreement: there must be an agreement between members to achieve their object.
4. No Agreement to Commit an Offence: Crucially, this immunity does not extend to agreements that involve the commission of a criminal offence. Actions involving violence, unlawful confinement, trespass, or intimidation fall outside the purview of this protection, and individuals involved can be prosecuted under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Office bearer or member: the act commit either by office bearer or member of trade union.
6. Conspiracy: must commit conspiracy under section 120B (2) IPC and this conspiracy is punishable with imprisonment upto 6 months or fine or both. If the conspiracy is of nature whose imprisonment is more than 6 months, then they will not be immune.

The rationale behind this provision is to protect the collective action of trade union members in pursuing legitimate labour goals from being automatically construed as criminal conspiracy. However, it is vital to emphasize that this immunity is narrowly construed and does not provide a blanket exemption from criminal law.

Example: Legal Strikes.
The immunity protects against criminal charges for agreements made to achieve union objectives.
This immunity does not apply to illegal strikes or any other criminal offence.
Also does not protect unlawful act, like forcible confinement or assault.

Limitations to this immunity

1. Only applies to Registered trade unions
2. Only to those conspiracy of not more than 6 months imprisonment
3. This section is narrowly interpreted

CIVIL IMMUNITY

Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 provides a degree of civil immunity to registered trade unions, their office-bearers, and members in the context of trade disputes. It stipulates that no civil suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable against a registered trade union or any member or officer thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.

Grounds for civil immunity:

1. Induces another person to break a contract of employment: This protects the union and its members from liability for actions like calling a lawful strike, which may inevitably lead to employees breaching their employment contracts.
2. Interferes with the trade, business, or employment of some other person: Peaceful picketing, for instance, while potentially affecting an employer’s business, is protected under this clause, provided it is carried out lawfully.
3. Interferes with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or labour as he wills: This clause provides protection for actions taken during a trade dispute that might indirectly impact an individual’s freedom to conduct their business or employment as they see fit.

Section 18. Immunity from civil suit in certain cases

(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 of his labour as he wills.

(2) A registered Trade Union shall not be liable in any suit or other legal proceeding in any Civil Court in respect of any tortious 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 Union.

Essentials to claim civil immunity

1. Registered Trade Union: Similar to criminal immunity, this protection is contingent upon the trade union being duly registered.
2. In Contemplation or Furtherance of a Trade Dispute: The act in question must be directly related to an existing or anticipated trade dispute to which a member of the trade union is a party. The term “trade dispute” has a specific definition under the Act.
3. Lawful Means: The immunity is strictly limited to acts carried out by lawful means. Any act involving violence, intimidation, coercion, or other illegal methods will render this protection inapplicable.
4. Tortious Acts by Agents: Furthermore, a registered trade union is not liable in any civil suit for any tortious act committed by its agent in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute if it is proved that the agent acted without the knowledge of, or contrary to the express instructions of the executive of the trade union. This provision seeks to shield the union from liability for unauthorized wrongful acts of its representatives.

Limitations to civil immunity

1. Only applicable to registered trade unions
2. Acts Must Be in Contemplation or Furtherance of a Trade Dispute: This means the act was done when a trade dispute was reasonably foreseen or anticipated and the act was done with the direct aim of resolving or furthering the interests related to an existing trade dispute to which a member of the trade union is a party.
3. The Suit Must Be Based Solely on Specific Grounds
4. Lawful Means Requirement: This is a critical limitation. The acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute must be carried out by lawful means. it does not involve violence, intimidation, coercion, etc.

Case Laws

R.S. Ruikar v. Emperor (criminal immunity)

Facts: The applicant was the president of the Nagpur Textile Union and they were on strike for not fulfilling certain conditions against Empress Mills. The appellant to make the strike more impactful and to get the involvement of larger members encouraged the members to picket at the mills through speeches.
On account of two female picketers being harassed by the police, the applicant posted his wife on one of the mill gates instructing her to picket and to beat with her slippers if anyone interfered with her.
The charges under S.7 of the Criminal Amendment Law were made against him for the abetment of picketing and a conviction order was made by the Court. Hence the appellant made a revision petition.
Issue: Whether the appellant will get the benefit of S.17 of the Trade Union Act?
Whether Sec 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act has universal application?
Judgement: The court referred to Shantanand Gir vs Basudevanand Gir, where it was held that reference to the statement of objects and reasons appended to an act could be made when there was an ambiguity.  In the present case, the wording of the section under consideration is entirely plain and unambiguous.
Although various sections in the Criminal Amendment Law are directed towards activities subversive to the Government, it doesn’t mean it has no universal application.
The court stated that the court is bound to interpret the law as it is and cannot interfere with the Legislature. And if the Legislature want to exclude section 7, then it would have explicitly mentioned.
Section 17 only relates to criminal conspiracy and not to all offenses and in the present case, the offense of abetment was done.  It only protects from making an agreement that is directed towards achieving any objectives of the Trade Union and from only the offense of Criminal conspiracy.
Court held that the appellant is liable for the offence and will not get any immunity.

Rohtas Industries Staff Union v. State of Bihar

Facts: The petitioner was the trade union, named Rohtas Industries Staff Union and they went on a strike against the company for not providing bonus and not implementing the Shri Jee Jee Bhoy’s award.
The strike ended on an agreement that they would resolve the dispute through the arbitrator under section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act. An arbitrator gave its decision in favour of the company holding that the Union has to compensate due to the loss in the production because of the strike.
The Petitioner filed a writ petition against the arbitrator’s order.
Issue: Whether arbitrator’s decision was valid?
Judgement: The tort of conspiracy is actionable only when the object of such conspiracy is to injure the other person and not to serve their bonafide and legitimate interests. A conspiracy to forward or defend their interest is not actionable even if it results in damaging the other person.
Where there are multiple objects in the conspiracy, there must be a test to determine the predominance object of the conspirer. If the predominant object is to lawfully forward or defend their bonafide interests, it is not actionable even if it results in damaging the other person.
The arbitrators found that the strike was conducted by the Union for “ulterior motives of their own” but were unable to find what those ulterior motives were. Even if they found those ulterior motives they would have to determine the predominant object to decide the tort of conspiracy. The arbitrators should have applied this principle.
Industrial Disputes Act provides that the purpose of this Act is to benefit the whole industry community and not only the employer and employees. The court found the arbitrator’s order to be illegal and ultra vires due to their failure to apply the principle of determining the predominant object or motive of the conspirators.

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. V State of West Bengal (criminal immunity)

Facts: The case arose during a period of heightened industrial unrest in West Bengal. A prevalent form of protest employed by workers was “gherao.” This involved the encirclement and confinement of managerial or administrative staff within their offices or premises for prolonged periods, often to pressure them into accepting workers’ demands.
The Government of West Bengal issued certain circulars to the police authorities. These circulars essentially directed the police not to intervene in instances of “gherao” without prior consultation with the Labour Minister or his nominee. The intent behind these circulars appeared to be to avoid escalating industrial tensions and to allow for resolution through negotiation.
Jay Engineering Works Ltd., facing such instances of “gherao” by its workmen, approached the Calcutta High Court seeking relief. The company argued that “gherao” was illegal, constituted offences under the Indian Penal Code (specifically wrongful confinement), and that the State Government’s circulars were impeding the police from discharging their duty to maintain law and order and protect the fundamental rights of the company’s personnel.
Issue: To what extent the immunities granted to registered trade unions and their members under Sections 17 and 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, apply to the actions involved in “gherao”?
Whether the acts constituting “gherao,” specifically the confinement of individuals, amount to offences under the Indian Penal Code?
Judgement:

The court held that “gherao” is inherently illegal. It involves the wrongful confinement of individuals, which is a specific offence punishable under Section 339 and 340 of the Indian Penal Code. The court reasoned that while workers have the right to protest and strike, these rights must be exercised lawfully and cannot infringe upon the fundamental rights of others, including their right to personal liberty. “Gherao” by its very nature involves coercion and the deprivation of personal freedom, placing it outside the ambit of legitimate industrial action.
The court clearly stated that the immunities granted under Sections 17 and 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, are conditional upon the actions taken being lawful. These sections protect agreements between union members made for legitimate trade union objects (Section 17) and provide immunity from civil suits based solely on inducing breach of contract or interfering with business during a trade dispute (Section 18), provided such acts are carried out by lawful means. Since “gherao” involves the commission of a criminal offence (wrongful confinement), the immunities provided under the Trade Unions Act do not extend to protect such actions. The court emphasized that the law does not grant immunity for the commission of crimes in the guise of industrial action.
The court held that the wrongful confinement of individuals, is an illegal and unconstitutional form of industrial action that is not protected by the immunities granted under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Furthermore, the State Government cannot issue executive orders that impede the police from discharging their statutory duty to prevent and take action against such illegal acts.

(Civil immunity) The Karnataka High Court in Simpson and Group Companies Workers and Staff Union versus Amco Batteries Ltd. (1991 LLR 95 Karn HC; 1994 II LLN 147) decided that till the activity of the association are serene the association can appreciate insusceptibility under the Act.

It held that the direct of the laborers in the moment case in obstructing the entry of men and material of the Plaintiff-Company despises resistance under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act. It was likewise seen by the Court that under a lock out or strike circumstance the insurance under area 18 doesn’t get expanded as the thought and the guideline are same under both the circumstances.

PRESENT PROBLEM

3. In the interest of the registered Trade Union and its office bearers, I would strongly contend that Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, gives them immunity from the claim for compensation by the management. The strike, although illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act, was something done in furtherance of a genuine trade dispute (the bonus demand). The Trade Unions Act provides immunity for such conduct to facilitate effective collective bargaining and protection of workers’ interests. To hold the Trade Union liable in this case would be against the intent and provisions of the Trade Unions Act and would have negative implications for the trade union movement. I would request the Tribunal to sustain the statutory immunity provided to the Trade Union and reject the management’s contention. PRECEDENT: R.S. Ruikar case