Chapter: 2.4.13 Instigation of Coercive Action in the M.R.T.U.P.U.L.P.

Instigation of Coercive Action

• In the case,

Blaze Advertising (P) Ltd. Bombay
V
Blaze Advertising and Allied Co's Employeees Union and other.
1985 II LLN 316

• the Unfair Labour Practice being under item 5 of Sch. III of the M_TU and PULP Act, 1971 it was seen that, the words like 'thief" class one thief' do not amount to coercive acts or Unfair Labour Practice.
• The High Court observed that, 'It is now a matter of common knowledge that the words like 'thief' or 'Class one thief" which are hurled by the workers are not to be taken nor are they in fad taken in their literary sense.
• They used figuratively, to suggest that things due to the workmen are withheld by the employer.
• Both the industrial world, as well as the society at large are by now familiar with such slogan and they carry no misconceptions about them.

Coercion

• In the case,


Nichani Hotels Corporation
V
Bombay Labour Union and others,
(1981)II LLN 247' )

• the Unfair Labour Practices be in under item 5 of Schedule III of the MRTU and PULP Act '1971 it was seen that, there cannot be hard and fast rule for deciding coercive nature of an act as it will, depend upon facts and circumstances.
• The Court further held that, 'Depending upon the facts' and circumstances of each 'Case if demonstrations are carried out in such manner, which results in coercion as to adversely affect the safety or trade or business then depending upon nature and gravity as well as the form of demonstration it can be held that, it is one of the form of coercive action which be covered by item 5 of Sch. III.
• Stopping supplies of essential material or taking out finished products .. covered by the said entry if it is adopted or used as a coercive action.'