Collective boycott by associations can constitute an anti-competitive arrangement, and participating office bearers may face liability.

Collective instructions, coordinated pressure, and disciplinary steps by trade associations that prevent members and non-members from dealing with a market participant can amount to an anti-competitive arrangement or tacit understanding under the Competition Act, 2002. The material described minutes, circulars, letters, and witness evidence showing concerted action that restricted the availability of artists, technicians, and production support, and the internal-union-activity defence was rejected. The text also states that office bearers who participate in and implement such association decisions may attract liability, with cease-and-desist and penalty directions sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants had engaged in anti-competitive conduct by imposing a ban or boycott and by acting in concert to restrict members and non-members from working with the informant. (ii) Whether the office bearers were liable under the Act and whether the Commission's cease-and-desist and penalty directions were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants had engaged in anti-competitive conduct by imposing a ban or boycott and by acting in concert to restrict members and non-members from working with the informant.

Analysis: The material on record, including minutes of meetings, circulars, letters, and witness statements, showed a consistent pattern of collective instructions and pressure not to associate with the informant. The evidence indicated that the associations acted through formal and informal directions, disciplinary steps, and coordinated communications, which restricted the availability of artists, technicians, and production support for the informant's projects. The conduct was found to amount to an anti-competitive arrangement and a tacit understanding having the effect of limiting the provision of services in the relevant industry. The challenge that the conduct was merely internal union activity was rejected.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 was upheld against AMMA, FEFKA, FEFKA Director's Union, and FEFKA Production Executives' Union.

Issue (ii): Whether the office bearers were liable under the Act and whether the Commission's cease-and-desist and penalty directions were justified.

Analysis: The record supported the conclusion that the concerned office bearers had participated in and implemented the impugned decisions of the associations. The Commission's invocation of office-bearer liability and its consequential directions under the Act were therefore supported by the evidence accepted in the proceedings. No sufficient ground was found to interfere with the Commission's conclusions or the imposed consequences.

Conclusion: Liability of the office bearers under Section 48 was affirmed and the penalty and cease-and-desist directions were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full, and the Commission's order was maintained in substance.

Ratio Decidendi: Collective instructions, coordinated pressure, and disciplinary action by associations that restrict members and others from dealing with a person in the market can constitute an anti-competitive agreement or understanding under the Competition Act, and participating office bearers may be held liable for such conduct.

---