( 1 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction on the premise that it is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff has been providing public utility services in the form of telephone/mobile services to the public of the country. The office of the chief General Manager is responsible for maintenance work of telecom in the States of u. P. , Uttranchal, Rajasthan, Jandk, Punjab, himachal Pradesh, Haryana and administration of various staff in different categories in the northern Telecom Circle. The plaintiff came into existence on 1. 10. 2000 and nearly 3. 5 lakhs employees working in the erstwhile deptt. of Telecom Services and Deptt. of telecom Operations were transferred on deemed deputation to the company. It is the case of the plaintiff that the members of the defendant association are its employees and are entitled to the benefits strictly in adherence to the DPE Guidelines as mentioned in the letter issued by the plaintiff. As per condition No. 3 (vii) of the plaintiffs letter dated 29. 4. 2004, the defendants are completely refrained from creating dis-affection or dissatisfaction amongst the employees of the plaintiff or undermine discipline or anyway lowering the prestige or image of the plaintiff. as per condition 3 (viii) of the plaintiffs tetter dated 29. 4. 2004, they have to restrain from agitational approach such as resorting to strike and/or practices or conduct, which is likely to result in or result in cessation or substantial retardation of work and also to coercion or physical duress.

( 2 ) THE defendants served a notice dated 21. 6. 2004 whereby they threatened for launching dharna and indefinite hunger strike at the office of CGMM (NTR), Kidwai Bhawan, new Delhi on 21. 6. 2004 at 1000 hours and further postponed the date of the aforesaid dharna and indefinite hunger strike vide their letter dated 21. 6. 2004 for 2nd July, 2004. Vide its letter dated 15. 6. 2004, the defendants were informed by the plaintiff of their service condition and were asked to refrain from such activities and maintain cordial and peaceful relationship and not to disturb the work of the organisation. The defendants refused to listen to the said letter and vide their letter dated 18. 6. 2004 showed complete ignorance of the presence of the officials of other organisations. Faced with this situation, the plaintiff filed the present suit with the following prayers:-" (i) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1, its office bearers, including the defendants No. 2 and 3, members, sympathisers and associates restraining them from resorting to strike, rallies, dharnas, demonstrations, gherao or any other unwarranted activities in and around the office premises of the plaintiff at Statesman House, barakhamba Road, New Delhi, Kidwai bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi or any other office premises of the plaintiff in delhi and also in or before the residential premises of the officers of BSNL; (ii) Pass decree of mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1, its office bearers, including the defendants No. 2 and 3, its office bears, members, sympathisers and associates commanding them not to interfere in the ingress and exit of the officers, staff or public in and from the office of the plaintiff, including the residential premises of the officers of the plaintiff and further command them not to interfere into the day-to-day administrative and technical functioning of the plaintiff and its officers; (iii) may pass any further order (s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice. "

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the defendants who filed detailed written statement and took various preliminary objections. One of the basic preliminary objections taken by the defendants was that the plaintiff is liable to pay court fee on Rs. 25 lacs as it cannot value the suit differently for the purp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document