2. Subsequently, on the mentioning of Mr.Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel appearing for M/s.MRF Limited, Arakkonam, it was posted for certain clarifications. When the matter was taken up on 4.12.2007, M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.36263 of 2007 was filed by MRF Arakkonam Workers' Welfare Union represented by its Secretary to implead itself as a party and M.P.No.2 of 2007 was filed by MRF Limited, Itchiputhur, Arakkonam, represented by its Plant Manager to implead the company as party.
4. The writ petition is filed by Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel and also the Honorary President of MRF United Workers Union for direction to the respondents in the writ petition namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arakkonam and the Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Arakkonam to permit him to address the workers of MRF Factory at Itchiputhur [near Arakkonam] at the gate meeting between 2.30 pm. and 3.30 pm. to be held on 2.12.2007 (Sunday), as traditionally done in all factories with permission to use mike.
7. Even though the prayer was in respect of a gate meeting on 2.12.2007, the petitioner would submit that this being an issue relating to fundamental right, the petitioner has the right to address the meeting on subsequent days and therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition has become infructuous.
8. M.P.No.1 of 2007 is filed by MRF Arakkonam Workers' Welfare Union, which is also stated to be a registered Union, to implead it as a party with the pleadings that the MRF Limited is having a tyre manufacturing factory at Itchiputhur wherein 1416 workers are working and out of them, 1365 are confirmed workmen. According to the petitioner in the said M.P., out of 1365 workmen, 1194 are the members of its Union, 57 workers are members of MRF Cycle Tyre Workers Union and remaining 114 workers alone are the members of MRF United Workers Union to which the writ petitioner is the Honorary President. Therefore, the petitioner in the M.P. is the majority union recognised by the management as the sole collective bargaining agent. According to the petitioner union, the workmen have given individual letters to the MRF Limited authorising the Union to deduct the subscription from their monthly salary. According to the petitioner in the M.P., MRF United Workers Union is having its Office at Sholingar Road, opposite to L.I.C. at Arakkonam and if the writ petitioner wants to speak to its members, he can address the meeting in the Office itself in respect of the ILO recommendations. The gate of MRF Limited is situated on the Highways road which is very narrow. According to the petitioner in the M.P., the aim of the writ petitioner is to create certain problems among the work force so that the management will take some drastic action and the petitioner wanted to take advantage of the same to ventilate the grievance that even after the recommendations of the ILO, the management is resorting to victimisation.
The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. No costs. M.P.No.1 of 2007 is dismissed and M.P.No.2 of 2007 is allowed.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Arakkonam.
2. The Inspector of Police Taluk Police Station Arakkonam.