Back
High Court Of Delhi
PATEL OIL MILLS - Appellant
Versus
RELAXO RUBBER AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION - Respondent
Decided On : 09/11/1998
Demonstrations, gheraos and such other activities are the means and tools through which the workers and the workmen ventilate their grievances against the management. Such activities are recognised as legal trade union activities which is considered to be a peaceful mechanism to display group feelings towards a cause and for redressal of the grievances. Such legitimate trade union activities when and if carried in a peaceful and legal manner are not to be shut out as in that event the same might cause permanent damage to the cause of industrial peace. Such trade union activities are also recognised by the laws of the country. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that no one could be allowed to exercise his right so as to cause harm and prejudice the exercise of right of another. No one could be allowed to physically interfere with the trade and business of the plaintiff. thereforee, in such matters, a balancing scale has to be applied so that the important freedom enjoyed by the trade union activists is restricted only to the extent needed to preserve the proper and efficient functioning of the business of the plaintiff. The equation must be properly balanced so that the rights of the defendants to enjoy their freedom and to exercise their legal rights is not rendered ineffective and illusory and at the same time the business of the plaintiff does not suffer.
In the light of the aforesaid allegations and counter allegations, I am of the considered opinion, that a restraint order is to be passed restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the ingress to or egress from the premises at F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi, or from obstructing in any manner the officer, employees, clients, callers, visitors and from doing any acts of violence. It is true that when demonstration, gherao and other such activities are carried out, the same may result in some sort of interference with trade and business of the plaintiff. But, that is an unavoidable consequence of such a trade union activity. But at the same time no one could be allowed to take law into their own hands and, thereforee, the defendants also cannot be allowed to physically interfere with the trade and business of the plaintiff.
In my considered opinion as to how much distance should be there is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. For maintaining a measured and specified distance from the premises of the plaintiff could be ordered in order to prevent any act of violence or threat of bodily injury and for causing easy ingress and egress of a willing worker. But, in such cases also the situation and the surroundings of the premises in question have to be taken into active consideration and cannot be lost sight of. No such restriction should be put by the Court which would render ineffective a peaceful strike or to deprive the workers of their legitimate rights.
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I hold that the defendants can hold meeting, demonstration, dharna and peaceful picketing on the front side footpath where the main entrance and factory entrance are located, but, outside the boundary wall and in a corner of such wall and away from the main entrance and factory entrance in a peaceful and legal manner without in any manner disturbing the ingress and egress from the aforesaid premises.
( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the applications filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code registered as I. A. Nos. 5196/1998 and 5263/1998 as also the application filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code registered as I. A. No. 5697/1998.
( 2 ) IN the applications filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has sought for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-Union and the workmen from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the ingress and egress of employees, visitors and also from causing blockade, dharna, gherao, demonstration, slogan shouting at the plaintiffs factory /office/residence namely (i) Patel Oil Mills, F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi, (ii) Patel Oil Mills, Allied House, 3rd Floor, Inderlok Chowk, Delhi and (iii) E-13, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
( 3 ) ON the aforesaid applications, this Court by order dated 17. 6. 1998 passed an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, members and friends from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the ingress and egress of employees, visitors, material and also from causing blockade at the plaintiffs aforesaid premises. This Court further passed an order restraining the defendants from carrying out any violent demonstration at the plaintiffs aforementioned premises. It was, however, clarified by the aforesaid order that the aforesaid order would not come on the way of the defendants from holding any peaceful demonstration and/or picketing at F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi, provided the said demonstration/picketing is not carried out in front of the main entrance and the stores entrance of the said premises.
( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY by order dated 23. 6. 1998, in addition to the aforesaid order of injunction granted by the Court, this Court issued a further order of injunction restraining the defendants from holding any demonstration and/or picketing within 250 yds. , at F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders restraining the defendants as aforesaid, an application has been filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.
( 5 ) THE suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents as aforesaid in the following manner:
"to pass decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, associates, servants and members from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the ingress and egress of the visitors, employees and materials and causing blockade, dharna, gherao, demonstration, slogan shouting, paste posters and causing hooliganism, putting up loud-speakers within the premises or outside the premises within range of 500 meters at the plaintiffs factory/office/residence namely (i) Patel Oil Miss, F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi, (ii) Patel Oil Mills, Allied House, 3rd Floor, Inderlok Chowk, Delhi and (iii) E-13, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi". In the aforesaid suit, the present application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was filed. It is contended by the counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the defendants have been illegally and unjustifiably holding demonstrations, shouting slogans, causing blockade to the ingress and egress to the employees, visitors to the aforesaid premises, namely, F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi, belonging to the plaintiff. Counsel further submitted that in spite of issuance of order of injunction on 17. 6. 1998, the workers and the Union leaders were still carrying out the demonstration exactly in front of the factory premises and were blocking the ingress and egress to the factory and to the store of the factory. Counsel during his course of submissions also drew attention of the Court to the various complaints filed by the plaintiff making allegations against the workmen of indulging in violent demonstration and man-handling the executive staff of the plaintiff s company and on the basis thereof submitted that the ad interim injunction
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
