( 1 ) BY this order, plaintiffs application I. A. 11116/98 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code) and defendants, application I. A. 2964/99 (under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code) filed in a suit for injunction are being disposed of.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF is a Stock Exchange duly recognised/licensed under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 having a strength of about 185 employees. Defendant No. 1 is a union of its employees, defendants No. 2 and 3 are its President and General Secretary while defendants No. 4 to 17 are some of its members. In the suit, the plaintiff has alleged that the defendants have been illegally and unjustifiably holding demonstrations, shouting slogans, indulging in illegal and unjustified activities of gherao, sabotage, manhandling and causing blockage to the ingress and egress threatening the managers, brokers, investors, general public and willing employees to press their illegal and unjustified demands during trading hours and have also been threatening to cause damage to the lives of the employees and valuable properties of the plaintiff such as equipments like V-SAT, telecommunication equipments, etc. affecting adversely smooth functioning of the plaintiff. They have held meetings on 27. 11. 1998, 28. 11. 1998. 1. 12. 1998 and 2. 12. 1998 at the Exchange premises blocking ingress and egress of those coming to the plaintiff. During meetings/demonstration held on 2. 12. 1998, they had gheraoed Shri Girish Aggarwal, Deputy General Manager of the plaintiff in his cabin, misbehaved, used provocative, abusive and filthy language to him and to others who came to his rescues. On 3. 12. 1998 also, a gate meeting was held again resorting to unruly behavior and instigating and provocating other employees to join them. Even some outsiders had also been joined in the these meetings thereby causing inconvenience to all concerned.

( 3 ) SIMILAR averments have been made in the application of interim injunction. By an ex parte injunction order dated 10. 12. 1998, the defendants etc. were restrained from holding any demonstration, blockage, dharna, picketing and in any manner causing obstruction in the ingress or egress to and from the premises at offices at Asaf Ali Road and Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi and also from blocking the working of the -plaintiff. However, they could carry on demonstration, dharna and picketing in a corner outside the boundary wall away from the premises without using any microphone or loudspeaker in a peaceful manner.

( 4 ) THE defendants filed written statement and separate application for vacating the interim injunction. They have denied the averments made by the plaintiff. It is denied that hey had resorted to any illegal activities or caused any obstruction or interfered in the working of the plaintiffs or inconvenience to the public. It is alleged that on the facts alleged there is no cause of action and the suit is not maintainable and no ground existed for grant of ex parte injunction and the same has been obtained by misrepresentation and concealment of facts On merit it is alleged that they had submitted a charter of demands pertaining to their service conditions on 19. 2. 1996 for improvement of their service conditions and except two interim reliefs of 30% increase in D. A. and Rs. 200. 00 per month in house rent allowance, the demands remained unresolved in spite of repeated representations made to the management. The plaintiff even did not cooperate in the proceedings taken up by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner. They. claim service benefits comparable to those available to Government employees as per 5lh Pay Commission or at par with the employees of other stock exchanges at Mumbai and Chennai. They have denied that they had resorted to any illegal demonstration, dharna, gherao, picketing or caused any obstruction. On the other hand, it is alleged that they had held peaceful meetings during part of the lunch hour without causing any inco