The distance for restraining demonstration by employees from the boundary of the hotel should be determined based on various factors, including the topography of the area, the approach and exit from the building, the proximity and existence of other establishments, the nature of the industry, and the individual facts and circumstances of the case.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of two interim applications, viz. IA 4311/99 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and IA 4977/99 filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF Asian Hotels Limited have instituted the present suit for permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from holding any demonstration, Dharna, etc. within a radius of 500 meters from the boundary wall of Hotel Hyatt Regency. Defendant No. I is the Asian Hotels Employees Union and defendants 2 to 16 are the office bearers of defendant No. I and employees of the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE suit was instituted on 28. 4. 1999 and was accompanied by IA 4311 /99. Vide an ex parte order dated 29. 4. 1999 the defendants were restrained from holding any demonstrations, Dharnas within a radius of 250 meters from the boundary wall of Hotel Hyatt Regency. Defendants subsequently filed IA 4977/99 for vacating the ex parte order.

( 4 ) PLEADINGS in the suit and the interim applications are complete. Counsel for the parties have been heard on the applications. The case of the plaintiff is as under :

(I) Plaintiff is the owner and managers the five star Deluxe Hotel Hyatt Regency, which is frequented by foreign dignitaries. State guests and diplomats, amongst others. (ii) Plaintiff contends that two of the office bearers of defendant No. I, viz. Chander Bahadur, defendant No. 4; and Yashwant Kurnar were facing serious charges of misconduct. The management, after giving due opportunity, conducted an enquiry and found their explanation unsatisfactory. The said two employees have been dismissed while enquiry proceedings are pending against three others, who are under suspension. The dismissed and suspended employees are being aided and abetted by outsiders and have been instigating the employees to strike work and disrupt the functioning of the hotel. The defendants, it is claimed, have been attempting to paralyse the operations of the hotel and, in fact, one of the employees of the plaintiff, was severely beaten, details of which are given in the replication. It is, in these circumstances, that plaintiff lodged reports with the police.

( 5 ) THE defendants, on the other hand, claimed that plaintiffs have unleashed repression after the registration of their trade union. The attempt is to curb and scuttle the legitimate trade union activity. Management has already suspended 16 employees and dismissed two employees. It is submitted that till date, even before the filing of the suit or thereafter, no demonstration- has been organised. There is no obstruction whatsoever to the egress and ingress and that employees are conscious of their responsibilities. It is submitted that the ex parte injunction, prohibiting holding of demonstrations within a distance of 250 meters is virtually amounting to a ban on holding of demonstrations and scuttling the trade union activity. It is urged that this order ought to be vacated so that employees can demonstrate peacefully outside the hotel.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff argued that defendants had preferred FAO (OS) 152/99 aginst the order dated 29. 4. 1999, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that the appropriate remedy was to move the Single Judge under Order XXXIX, Rule 4, CPC, and simply because a long date was given, the same could not be a ground for preferring an appeal. Against the order of the Division Bench, the defendants preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. He urged that the grounds taken in the Special Leave Petition were the same which are now sought to be urged and, accordingly, the interim order deserved to be confirmed and defendants prayer for vacation rejected. In my view, the dismissal of the appeal against the ex parte order by the Division Bench and the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court would not come