Back
High Court Of Delhi
DELHI SECURITY PRINTERS - Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING AND GENERAL MAZDOOR UNION (REGD.) - Respondent
Decided On : 05/01/1996
INJUNCTION - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - SECTION 2(J) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - PERMANENT INJUNCTION GRANTED RESTRAINING DEFENDANTS FROM HOLDING DEMONSTRATIONS, DHARNA, SHOUTING SLOGANS, HOLDING MEETINGS, TAKING OUT ANY PROCESSION, MARCH OR HOLDING ANY DEMONSTRATION WITHIN A RADIUS OF 100 MTRS. FROM THE FACTORY /OFFICE PREMISES OF THE PLAINTIFF FIRM AND THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE PARTNERS OF THE PLAINTIFF FIRM.
Fact of the Case:
THE PLAINTIFF, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, FILED A SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, WHO WERE THREATENING TO HOLD DEMONSTRATIONS, DHARNA, AND PREVENT THE PLAINTIFF FROM CARRYING OUT ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANTS' THREATS TO HOLD DEMONSTRATIONS AND DHARNA WOULD CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM TO THE PLAINTIFF AND WOULD PARALYZE ITS WORKING.
Issues: WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS' THREATS TO HOLD DEMONSTRATIONS AND DHARNA WERE UNLAWFUL AND WOULD CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM TO THE PLAINTIFF.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT THE DEFENDANTS' THREATS WERE UNLAWFUL AND WOULD CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM TO THE PLAINTIFF, AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANTS FROM CARRYING OUT THEIR THREATS.
Final Decision: THE COURT GRANTED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANTS FROM HOLDING DEMONSTRATIONS, DHARNA, SHOUTING SLOGANS, HOLDING MEETINGS, TAKING OUT ANY PROCESSION, MARCH OR HOLDING ANY DEMONSTRATION WITHIN A RADIUS OF 100 MTRS. FROM THE FACTORY /OFFICE PREMISES OF THE PLAINTIFF FIRM AND THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE PARTNERS OF THE PLAINTIFF FIRM.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff, named above, has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff is a partnership firm, duly registered with the Registrar of Firms Shri Anuj Khurana is one of the partners of the plaintiff firm who is fully conversant with the facts of the case and competent to sign and verify the plaint and institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, as per the averment made in the plaint, carries on the business of manufacture and trading of paper, stationery, printing, general order suppliers, loose leaf binders and allied stationery which is mainly used in banks for maintenance of accounts and records, printing of lottery tickets and bus tickets at Premises H-56, Udyog Nagar Industrial Area, Opposite Peerangarhi, Delhi and 31-B, Prahlad Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
1. 1 It is alleged that defendant No. 2 is an employee of the plaintiff. The plaintiff posted defendant No. 2 to Purmanu (Himachal Pradesh) temporarily for a period of 7 to 10 days and informed defendant No. 2 about the same vide letter dated the 28th July, 1995. However, defendant No. 2 refused to comply with the above orders and on account of the disobedience of the above order, the plaintiff suspended defendant No. 2 on 28th July, 1995 vide suspension order of even date. An inquiry was instituted against defendant No. 2 who was informed about the same vide letter dated 22nd August, 1995. In September, 1995 plaintiff appointed one Shri H. C. Sharma, resident of C-47, Subhash Park, Uttam Nagar to conduct the said inquiry and informed defendant No. 2 vide letter dated 11 th September, 1995. Shri H. C. Sharma commenced the inquiry on 17th September, 1995 which is still continuing.
1. 2 It is alleged that on or about 11th October, 1995 the plaintiff received a strike notice dated the 10th October, 1995 from defendant No. 1 purportedly on behalf of defendant No. 2 and 16 other employees of the plaintiff. In the said notice defendant No. 1 had threatened to hold massive demonstration at the office and the factory premises of the plaintiff with effect from 29th October, 1995. Defendant No. 1 also threatened to hold dharnas, shout slogans and prevent the free ingress and egress of the visitors and the willing workers to the factory and office premises of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 also threatened to hold similar demonstration, dhamas etc. at the residence of the partners of the plaintiff at Kothi No. 54/2, behind Sant Sangh, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. Defendant No. 1 also threatened to burn the effigies of the partners of the plaintiff firm.
1. 3 On or about 14th October, 1995 the plaintiff received a notice from the Labour Officer fixing 19th October, 1995 as the date to sort out the alleged disputes between the plaintiff and defendants and other workers of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the 16 workers whose names were included in the notice dated 10th October, 1995 of defendant No. 1 and the notice dated 11th October, 1995 of the Labour Officer informed defendant No. 1 and the Labour Officer that their names have been added in the notices above said without their consent as they have no dispute with the plaintiff. It is alleged that the representative of the plaintiff attended the meeting before the Labour Officer on 19th October, 1995 where the defendants were also present. The defendants again threatened to hold the massive demonstrations, dhamas etc. in the factory and office premises of the plaintiff and at the residence of the partners of the plaintiff firm. They also threatened to burn the effigies of the partners of the plaintiff firm.
1. 4 It is averred by the plaintiff that the entire working of the plaintiff is sought to be paralysed by the defendants w. e. f. 29th October, 1995 and the holding of demonstration and dharna would also lead to law and order problem. It is alleged that the plaintiff is entitled to carry on its business in
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
