Madras High Court Slams Company’s Legal Tactics | Finds Repeated Petitions an Abuse of Process Meant to Curb Legitimate Trade Union Action
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete dismissed a writ petition seeking police protection for a company's employees and property amid ongoing industrial disputes. The Court held that the petition constituted an abuse of judicial process and directed its dismissal, along with connected miscellaneous petitions. Additionally, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner for initiating what it termed as "frivolous and unwarranted litigation". The Court noted that no specific allegations of cognizable offences were made that warranted police intervention and that the petitioner’s repeated filings sought to bypass due legal processes.
The petitioner company, M/s. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd, formerly known as M/s. ACE Glass Containers Ltd, represented by its General Manager Mr. K. Saravanan, filed W.P. No. 26548 of 2021. The relief sought was to direct the first and second respondents—the Superintendent of Police, Puducherry, and the Inspector of Police, Sedarapet Police Station—to provide adequate police protection to safeguard the company’s premises, employees, and operations from alleged disruptions by trade unions.
The company also filed two interlocutory applications: W.M.P. No. 28003 of 2021 and W.M.P. No. 28004 of 2021. These applications sought interim injunctions restraining members of the fourth and fifth respondent trade unions—Hindusthan National Glass Employees Welfare Union (INTUC) and HNG Industries Thozhilar Nala Sangam (CITU)—from interfering with factory operations or staging protests within 500 meters of the company premises.
This petition was the third of its kind filed by the company. The first petition (W.P. No. 8845 of 2020) had been disposed of with directions for conciliation and with an interim injunction for eight weeks limiting union activity within 200 meters of the factory. The second petition (W.P. No. 26548 of 2021) was filed again seeking similar relief, but no interim order was granted. The third petition (W.P. No. 30379 of 2022) reiterated identical relief and led to a judicial directive limiting protests beyond 100 meters from the factory.
The Court noted that the initial cause for litigation arose when the fourth respondent union issued a notice on 24.06.2020 indicating a work-to-rule approach. The following day, the management suspended several union activists. The fifth respondent union issued similar notices, prompting conciliation efforts by the Labour Commissioner, which ended in a failure report dated 31.05.2021.
Instead of participating in negotiations, the petitioner continued to request police intervention. The company cited the expired interim injunction in the earlier writ petition to justify their position. It also falsely claimed a modified order reducing the protest radius to 100 meters—a statement the Court found was not borne out in the records.
The company’s subsequent letter dated 02.01.2021 to the Inspector of Police restated their demand for police intervention without providing details of any cognizable offence. This letter, coupled with a newspaper clipping, formed the basis for the current writ petition.
On 14.12.2021, the matter was listed for admission. As there was no representation from the Union Territory, the Court issued notice to the Chief Secretary. On 21.12.2021, the Additional Government Pleader submitted that if approached and satisfied, police protection could be provided. The Court recorded this and directed the petitioner to proceed accordingly. No interim relief was granted.
The petitioner, however, did not pursue this direction and instead filed a third petition—W.P. No. 30379 of 2022—seeking identical relief. In response to the union's contention regarding the pendency of the earlier petition, the Court in that case directed unions to conduct protests peacefully beyond 100 meters and authorized police to prevent illegal activities.
When the current petition was taken up again, the petitioner sought to withdraw it but subsequently filed a memo requesting disposal based on the order in the third writ petition. The Court found this approach inappropriate and concluded it was neither a withdrawal nor a proper motion.
The Court recorded that "this is the third round of litigation initiated by the petitioner company within the last three years" and stated that in each instance the company sought to "exert pressure on the workers by invoking judicial orders, characterising their industrial action as a law-and-order issue."
It further stated, "What is essentially a civil dispute is thus projected as a criminal issue, and the alleged failure of the police to provide adequate protection is cited as a ground for seeking police intervention."
The Court examined records of the previous petitions and found the claim of an order modifying the protest radius from 200 to 100 meters to be untrue. It stated, "no modification of the order dated 12.08.2020 had been made, as claimed by the petitioner."
On the petitioner’s conduct, the Court stated, "Rather than expressing any remorse or offering a candid explanation, the petitioner has brazenly sought disposal of the present writ petition based on a subsequent petition that was filed surreptitiously."
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao to state the principle that subsequent applications should ideally be placed before the same judge to prevent abuse of court processes.
It noted, "The filing of a second writ petition during the pendency of the first, particularly where the cause of action remains largely unaltered and the reliefs substantially overlap, is procedurally inappropriate."
The Court stated that, "absent any specific allegation or complaint lodged with the police regarding the commission of a cognizable offence...the vague and general assertions made by the petitioner management are clearly unsustainable."
Referencing Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd, the Court recorded, "Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."
The Court concluded that the writ petition constituted a misuse of judicial process. It ordered: "In view of the above, this writ petition is found to be an abuse of the process of the Court and is clearly vexatious in nature. Accordingly, W.P. No. 26548 of 2021 stands dismissed. The connected W.M.Ps. are also dismissed."
Further, the Court imposed costs: "The petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the 5th respondent trade union for having initiated this frivolous and unwarranted litigation."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. D. Ferdinand, Advocate, for M/s. BFS Legal
For the Respondents: Mr. Ramasamy Maiyappan, Government Advocate for Respondents 1, 2 & 3; M/s. Row & Reddy for Respondent 5 (No appearance); No appearance for Respondent 4
Case Title: M/s. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd vs. The Superintendent of Police & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. No. 26548 of 2021
Bench: Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete
[Read/Download order]
