Back
2001 Supreme(Del) 1484
High Court Of Delhi
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK - Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING AND GENERAL MAZDOOR UNION - Respondent
Suit 2580 of 2000
Decided On : 10/10/2001
NEMO K.PARASARAN, SHOBHIT GUPTA
The right to hold demonstrations is not absolute and can be restricted to prevent interference with the business activities of others.
Headnote:
Trade Unions Act - Injunction - The court decreed the suit to the extent that defendants are restrained from holding demonstration within a radius of 100 meters from the suit property occupied by the plaintiff
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a bank, sought injunction against the defendant union from holding a demonstration in front of its office, citing interference with normal banking activity and inconvenience to customers and the public.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant union had no privity of transactions with the plaintiff bank and that the threatened demonstration would hamper normal banking activity and cause inconvenience. The court also noted the immunity provided to registered trade unions under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, but emphasized that the right to hold demonstrations is not absolute.
Issues: The issues involved the right of the union to hold a demonstration in front of the plaintiff bank's office and the extent of this right in relation to the interference with the plaintiff's business.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while legitimate rights of unions can be preserved and protected, they can only hold demonstrations at a distance of 50 or 100 meters from legally occupied premises. The court also emphasized that the right to hold demonstrations is not unfettered or absolute.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed to the extent that defendants are restrained from holding demonstration within a radius of 100 meters from the suit property occupied by the plaintiff.
Key Points: - The suit restrains demonstrations within 100 meters of the suit property occupied by the plaintiff bank (!) - The court recognizes that the right to hold demonstrations is not absolute and must consider interference with business and public convenience (!) - Unions have immunity under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, but this does not grant unfettered rights to demonstrate; demonstrations may be restricted to 50 or 100 meters from legally occupied premises (!) (!) - The court decreed the suit to the extent of restraining demonstrations within 100 meters of the plaintiff’s premises (!) - Facts include the union’s lack of privity of transactions with the plaintiff and potential disruption to banking activities (!)
What is the extent of the right to hold demonstrations in relation to a plaintiff's premises?
What is the appropriate distance within which demonstrations by a trade union may be held near a legally occupied property?
What are the rights and limitations of registered trade unions under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act in the context of demonstrations near a bank?
( 1 ) THIS is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and their agents, representatives or members from holding any demonstration and for directions to the defendant no. 3 to act in accordance with law.
( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as under:- the plaintiff is a bank incorporated in England with limited liability by Royal Charter 1853 having its indian corporate office at New Excelsior Building, 3rd and 4th floor, A. K. Naik Marg, Mumbai and its branch office at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The plaintiff received a letter in the evening of 17/11/2000 from the defendant no. 1 union wherein defendant no. 1 union has threatened a massive demonstration before the plaintiff bank office situated at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Perusal of the said letter indicates that the said letter was issued at the behest of defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 2 also happens to be the President of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 is the proprietor/partner of Mahashakti Electronics and has an account with plaintiff bank. There was a dispute with defendant no. 2 in respect of the account which he holds with the plaintiff bank and the dishonour of cheques issued by defendant no. 2. It was stated in the said letter that a demonstration was earlier planned for 19/11/2000 which has since been postponed for 20/11/2000.
( 3 ) IT is averred that defendant no. 1- Union has no privity of any transactions with the plaintiff bank and therefore has no locus standi whatsoever to hold the threatened demonstration in front of the plaintiff bank s office. It is further averred that plaintiff bank is a large concern doing respectable worldwide banking business. The threatened demonstration shall also hamper the normal banking activity of the plaintiff bank and would cause unnecessary and avoidable inconvenience to the customers of the plaintiff bank as well as the general public.
( 4 ) IMMUNITY is provided to the registered trade union from being sued by way of civil suit under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 in respect of any act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the Trade Union is a party on the ground only that such act induces some other person to break a contract of employment or that it is in interference with the trade, business or employment of some other person or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or of his labour as he wills.
( 5 ) FURTHER, the exercise of the freedom, if any granted under Article 19 (1) (g) does not confer any exclusive right on a union to hold demonstration, particularly when they have no right to do so. Despite service of summons, defendants did not choose to appear and content the pleadings and were proceeded ex-parte.
( 6 ) WHAT is relevant as to the right to freedom of speech and expression for the aforesaid purpose is as to what is the nature and extent of right to hold demonstrations and whether such a right is absolute right in terms of Article 19 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the right of freedom of speech and of assembling peacefully and grants freedom of form associations as contemplated by clause 9 (b) and (c) of the article 19.
( 7 ) AGAIN there is unvarying unanimous opinion that such a right is not unfettered or absolute or in the nature of free for all. In 1991 LLR 792. A. D. Singh, J. also dealt with this aspect at great length and placing reliance on AIR 1962 SC 1166, Kameshwar Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1969 SC 966. Railway board, New Delhi and another vs. Niranjan Singh; 1966 lab. 1c 1543, The Association of State Road Transport undertakings vs. The Association of State Road Transport undertakings Employees Union (Regd.) and others observed that every citizen of India has freedom of speech and to form associations and unions but there is no right to hold meetings and shout slogans at premises legally occupied by another. Freedom is thus
