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 office-
bearer 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 agree-
ment 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.