Immunity from

Civil Liability
Section 18 of TU Act
 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.
Conditions
The conditions for such protection against any civil suit or
other legal proceedings are:
 A registered TU
 Persons seeking immunity must be members or office-
bearers of the TU
 A trade dispute, either existing or contemplated
Conditions
 Specific grounds for the protection are:
 Act of inducement,
 Procurement or
 Interference must be by lawful means and not
by means which would be illegal or wrongful by
other provisions of law.
Thus if acts done in furtherance of a trade
dispute involve any violence, etc. then the
immunity will no longer be available.
Cases: Rohtas Industries Staff
Union v State of Bihar AIR 1963
Pat 170
 Facts: A dispute between the Union and the employer
arose, which was submitted for arbitration.
 Later arbitrator gave the award, which stated that the
workers who had gone for strike will pay compensation
to the Rohtas Industries Ltd. and Ashoka Cement Works
as the strike was illegal.
 The Union went in appeal in Patna High Court, which
decided that arbitrator had committed error of law in
holding that workers were not protected by S. 18(1) of
the TU Act.
 As per arbitrators reason for strike was non-
implementation of Jee Jee Bhoy’s award regarding
payment of wages to casual workers.
 Arbitrators stated that the strike was illegal as its
object was ulterior. It did not specify the ulterior
motives.
 In this case the Court referred to Lord Cave’s decision in Sorrel
v Smith, who gave two propositions of law which are:
 (1) A combination of two or more persons willfully to injure a,
man in his trade is unlawful and, if it results in damage to him,
is actionable.
 (2) If the real purpose of the combination is, not to injure
another, but to forward or defend the trade of those who enter
into it, then no wrong is committed and no action will lie,
although damage to another ensues.
 The distinction between the two classes of case is sometimes
expressed by saying that in cases of the former class there is
not, while in cases of the latter class there is, just cause or
excuse for the, action taken.
 The Court also referred to Lord wright in Crofter
Hand-woven, Harris Tweed Co. v. Veith (1942):
 In commercial affairs, each trader's rights are qualified
by the right of others to compete. Where the rights of
labour are concerned, the rights of the employer are
conditioned by the right of the men to give or withhold
their services. The right of workmen to strike is an
essential element in the principle of collective,
bargaining.
Predominant Purpose Test:
 It is enough to say that, if there is more than one purpose
actuating a combination, liability must depend on ascertaining
the predominant purpose. If that predominant purpose is to
damage another person and damage results, that is tortious
conspiracy. If the predominant purpose is the lawful protection
or promotion of any lawful interest of the combiners, it is not a
tortious conspiracy, even though it causes damage to another
person.
Observation of the Court
 What is important in such case is whether the
predominant purpose of the workmen was in
contemplation or furtherance of trade dispute?
 Illegality of a strike is decided under S. 24(1) of the ID
Act.
 Illegality or legality of a strike has no bearing on the
question of immunity provided under S. 18(1).
 The demonstrators are protected as long as they are
peaceful and do not turn violent.
Decision
 Court issued writ of Certiorari (review of order of lower
court by High Court) against the arbitrators and held
their award as illegal and ultra vires i.e. the award of
compensation to employer by the workmen for the
strike.
Common Cause v Union of India
(1996) 1 CCC 24 (NCDRC)
 The members of the Indian Flight Engineers Association went
on a strike for about six weeks, in which air passengers were
put to great amount of inconvenience. The suit was filed
against members of the Association and Air India for
compensation.
 The Association contended that the strike was regarding a
labour dispute between the Association and Air India and no
consumer complaint can legally arise out of such agitation
launched by a trade union, as Section 18 provides immunity
against such civil action.
 The Union of India contended that the strike was illegal as
there was no prior notice and the strike was declared as
illegal by the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India.
 The Court held that the strike was illegal and was not
covered under S. 18. as the Association went on strike on the
ground that some of their demands were not satisfactorily
heard by the Air India.
 It further stated that the strike was resorted to when there
was a reference pending regarding those demands before the
National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication and conciliation.
Standard Chartered Bank v Chartered
Bank Employees’ Union (1997) 68 DLT 391

 The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction

against the workers’ union from restraining them for
demonstrating within 500 meters of radius of the Bank.
 The Delhi High Court decided that the restriction must
be imposed regarding demonstration within 50 meters
of radius of the establishment, as protection may be
granted under S. 18 only if the demonstration is being
held beyond 50-100 meters of the establishment.
Privilege to make agreements
in restraint of trade
 As per S. 19, such agreements in restraint of trade are valid,
and are not subject any law in force. Even S. 27 of the
Contract Act which holds such agreements void does not apply
here.
For example:
 Not to work on low wages for longer hours in an establishment.
 Not to work in an establishment until their demands regarding
better working conditions or more salary with other facilities
and bonus, etc. are met with.
 But such agreements are not enforceable. One member
of a TU cannot file a civil suit against another member
stating that he had broken such agreement and claiming
enforcement of the agreement or damages.
 Such provision has been there to protect industrial
peace and maintenance of unity within a TU.