Immunity From Criminal Liability.pptx

Immunity from Criminal Liability Section 17 of TU Act

Immunity from Criminal Liability (S. 17) 

No Office bearers or members of a registered TU shall be liable to punishment under S120B (2) IPC in respect of any agreement made between the members for the purpose of furthering any such object of the TU as specified in S. 15, unless the agreement is an agreement to commit an offence.

Conditions Applicable: 1.

The person seeking the immunity should be the officebearer or member of a TU;

2.

Such TU must be registered;

3.

The members should have had the agreement to achieve some lawful object;

4.

The objects of the agreement must be covered under Section 15 of the Act; Protection is only for those conspiracies covered under S 120B (2), IPC and

5.

If the agreement is an agreement to commit an offence then no protection is available under the Act.

Scope of Immunity 

S. 17 permits declaration of strike in furtherance of Trade Dispute subject to the provisions of the ID Act including SS. 22, 23, 24 and 25.



It provides immunity only from criminal conspiracy not from criminal offence.



Immunity is available only to the extent of legal and peaceful strike.



There is no immunity from the offence of criminal conspiracy in cases of illegal strike, as such activity is punishable under S. 26 of the ID Act.



Example: Gazette of India Clause 16, states that inducing a person to make a breach of contract amounts to civil action, which is a criminal conspiracy covered under S. 17.

Philosophy behind S. 17 

The immunity from criminal liability is based on Section 3, English Conspiracy and Protection of the Property Act, 1875.



This provision states that “an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be punishable as a conspiracy if such act committed by one person could not be punishable as a crime.”

Criminal Conspiracy 

S. 120A IPC defines Criminal Conspiracy-



When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,— (1) an illegal act, or



(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:



Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.



Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.



Here, Illegal means:



Everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action. [S. 43, IPC]

Punishment for Conspiracy (S. 120B) (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 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.

Cases: R.S. Ruikar v Emperor AIR 1935 Nag 149 

In this case the president of Nagpur Textile Union called a strike as certain conditions in the terms of settlement of a strike in the previous year had been evaded by the Express Mills in Nagpur.



For getting the desired results, the TU started picketing.



Picketing means the presence at an employer's business of one or more employees and/or other persons who are publicizing a labour dispute, influencing employees or customers to withhold their work or business, respectively, or showing a union's desire to represent employees; picketing is usually accompanied by patrolling with signs.

R. S. Ruikar v Emperor AIR 1935 Nag 149 

It was complained that two women picketers were harassed by the police and were driven away.



Later, the president brought his wife to one of the mill gates and posted her there and instructed her to beat with slippers anyone who interfered with her.



The president was arrested, prosecuted and convicted for abetment of picketing under S. 7 of the Criminal Amendment Act, 1932 for molestation while picketing and its abetment.

R.S. Ruikar v Emperor AIR 1935 Nag 149 

It was contended that there was a dispute between S. 7 of the Criminal Amendment Act and Trade Union Act 1926.



It was also contended in this case that there is a conflict between S. 7 of the Criminal Amendment Act and S. 17 of the TU Act, as the right to strike and immunity under SS. 17 and 18 would not be of any help if S. 7 of the Criminal Amendment Act was held as applicable.



The Court observed in this case that the trade unions have right to declare a strike and to do certain acts in furtherance of trade disputes.

R. S. Ruikar v Emperor AIR 1935 Nag 149 

It further observed that they are not liable civilly or criminally for conspiracy in furtherance of such acts as permitted by the TU Act, but there is nothing which apart from providing immunity regarding criminal conspiracy allows immunity from criminal offences.



The Court decided in this case that the applicant was rightly convicted, as when peaceful demonstrators or strikers resort to unlawful confinement of persons or criminal assault or mischief to a person or property there is no exemption from liability.

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v State of West Bengal AIR 1968 Cal 407 

Issue: Whether Gherao is protected under the TU Act as a means of strike ?



Gherao means physical blockade of a target either by encroachment or forcible occupation. It is a type of physical obstruction and is an offence under S. 340 of the IPC.



It restricts the movement of a person. The workers of a TU can be booked for the offence of gherao.

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v State of West Bengal AIR 1968 Cal 407 

The Calcutta High Court in this case declared that gherao is an illegal means of protest or demonstration. On the basis of facts and circumstances it might be held legal but the scope is really limited.



It further held that if a person or number of persons wrongfully confine another person or persons, it is elementary that it comes under SS. 339(wrongful restraint)/340 (wrongful confinement) of the IPC read with SS. 341/342 (punishments of these crimes) of the IPC and cannot be saved by Section17, TU Act.

West India Steel Co. Ltd. v Azeez (1990) IILLJ 133 Ker 

The Court in this case declared that a TU leader has no right to share managerial powers and he cannot dictate any worker individually or to workman generally about the manner in which they have to do their work.