The right to strike is a fundamental right but is subject to restrictions under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the court can grant an injunction restraining strike and demonstration activities if the defendants fail to comply with the notice period requirement under Section 22 of the Act.

( 1 ) -THESE three applications aremter-connected. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) SUIT No. 2551/95 is brought by the plaintiff Standard Chartered Bank against in all five defendants. Defendant No. 1, Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union is the Union of the employees of the plaintiff Bank whereas defendants 2 to 5 are its office-bearers. Out of these office bearers defendant No. 4 was working in the Loan Centre Unit of the plaintiff s branch at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi and byletter dated 1. 11. 1995 he has been transferred to Darya Ganj Branch and the said order was served on the defendant No. 4 on 2. 1 11 995. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 3. 11. 1995 the defendants and its members started shouting pitched slogans against the management using filthy language for its officers and created unruly scenes, thumped the tables and caused hindrance to the officers in discharging their duties and also obstructing the customers. Plaintiff further alleges that the defendants have also extended threats of physical violence to the officers of the plaintiff Bank and they have resorted to illegal strike. They had also made it known to the plaintiff that they would intensify and would instigate and resort to more violent activities and hold demonstrations, gheraos, dharnas, strike and obstruct ingress and egress of the plaintiff officers, willing employees as well as the customers. All these things are being committed in order to put pressure on the plaintiff and to coerce the plaintiff to withdraw the transfer order. Plaintiff has, therefore, filed the present suit to get a decree of perpetual injunction to restrain defendants and its employees from instigating and abetting other employees and to resort to strike, holding of demonstrations, shouting slogans, resorting to dhamas, gheraos and putting up loudspeakers within the radius of 500 metres on all the sides of the plaintiff s branch at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi.

( 3 ) ALONGWITH the suit plaintiff has filed interim application, viz. IA. 1240/95 seeking ad-interim injunction and this Court was pleased to pass ex-parte order of ad-interim injunction with a show-cause notice as to why the ad-interim injunction issued against them should not be made absolute.

( 4 ) IN pursuance of the said show-cause notice the defendants have put in appearance. They have filed their objections to the interim application. They have also filed written statement to the main suit and they have filed another application, IA. 11567/95 under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 to vacate the order of ad-interim injunction.

( 5 ) IT is contended by the defendants that the transfer of defendant No. 4 by the plaintiff is contrary to the provisions of Sastri Award, which is binding against the plaintiff. They further contended that they have never given any threats of causing physical violence and they had only done peaceful demonstration and that too out of the Bank building. They contended that the plaintiff has misled the Court by making false allegations against them and has obtained ex-parte order of adinterim injunction. They further contended that it is their fundamental right to go on strike and that there cannot be any order of injunction against them from proceeding on strike. They contended that they never intended to obstruct the working of the plaintiff Bank when they themselves are the employees of the same. They had never tried to instigate any worker or had threatened any officer of the plaintiff or had obstructed any customer coming to the Bank. Therefore, in these circumstances, they seek the vacation of the ex-parte order of ad-interim injunction.

( 6 ) THUS, in view of the controversy between the parties, I have to consider the question as to whether the defendants have got the right to go on strike and whether there could be any order of injunction against the defendants. It is the contention of the defendants that the transfer of d