Back
2008 Supreme(Del) 300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
M/S SUPERIOR CRAFTS ..... Plaintiff
Versus
CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS and ORS ..... Defendants
CS(OS) 627/2006
Decided on : March 10, 2008
Mr. Ravi Kant Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Manshi Chadha, Advocate
Ex-parte
The central legal point established in the judgment is the balance between trade unions' right to peaceful demonstrations and the prohibition of acts that disrupt the employer's business, as well as the permissible scope of such demonstrations.
Headnote:
Trade Union - Injunction - Trade Unions Act, 1926, Industrial Disputes Act - The court discussed the principles applicable to suits and civil actions involving trade unions and employees' rights, emphasizing the right to peaceful demonstrations and strikes while prohibiting acts of violence and disruption of the employer's business. The court issued a decree for permanent injunction, allowing peaceful demonstrations beyond a range of 50 meters from the premises.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an export-oriented partnership firm, sought a permanent injunction against the defendants, a registered trade union and its members, to restrain them from holding demonstrations, dharnas, and causing hooliganism near the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff alleged various instances of misconduct and disruption by the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants had engaged in acts of manhandling, illegal strikes, and demonstrations, and had violated the court's orders. The court held that the plaintiff had proven its case and was entitled to relief.
Issues: The issues involved the defendants' conduct, the plaintiff's entitlement to a permanent injunction, and the permissible scope of peaceful demonstrations by trade unions and employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the right to peaceful demonstrations and strikes while prohibiting acts of violence and disruption of the employer's business. It held that the defendants could stage peaceful demonstrations beyond a range of 50 meters from the plaintiff's premises.
Final Decision: The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, issuing a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disrupting the plaintiff's business within a specified range and allowing peaceful demonstrations beyond that range. No costs were awarded.
Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court)
1. The plaintiff claims the following reliefs: a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining and prohibiting the defendants, their agents, members, associates etc. from holding any demonstrations, dharnas, gherao, slogan shouting and causing hooliganism at least 100 mts. from the premises bearing No. D-12,13, Udyog Nagar, Peera Garhi, New Delhi, 561/2, Swaran Park, Mundka, New Delhi and A-I/11 and B-5/11, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi; b) Direct the SHO of the concerned areas for the compliance of the order; c) Any other relief as the Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The plaintiffs averments are that it is an export oriented partnership firm having its registered office at D-13, Udyog Nagar, Peera Garhi, Delhi. Defendant No.1 is a registered trade union. The other defendants are its office bearers and members.
3. The plaintiff adverts to an incident dated 10.3.2006 whereby the defendants manhandled and misbehaved with a lady employee and when she called the police authorities they allegedly assaulted the police official inside inside the factory premises to which the plaintiff objected. The plaintiff further ave rs that certain employees of the firm resorted to an illegal strike and forcibly stopped the other employees from attending the office on 13.3.2006 thus effectively blockading the factory premises. The plaintiff advised the defendants to resume their duties through its legal notice dated 13.3.2006 but all in vain. It is alleged that the defendant on 14.3.2006 sent a letter to the plaintiff demanding that the suspended workers who had been lodged in Tihar Jail be marked on leave in its records. The plaintiff avers to further acts of illegal demonstrations, dharnas etc. on 31.3.2006 where acts of hooliganism were resorted by the defendants and also a demonstration held on 20.4.2006. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff seeks a decree against the defendants restraining the defendants, their agents, members, associates etc. from holding any demonstrations, dharnas, gherao, slogan shouting and causing hooliganism.
4. The Court issued summons in the suit and also restrained the defendants through an ex-parte order from holding demonstrations, dharnas, gherao etc. within a distance of 100 meters of the plaintiffs premises on 18.4.2006.
5. The defendants are un-represented and were proceeded ex-parte on 7th July, 2006 and 21st May, 2007. In the meanwhile, after the issuance of the initial interim order, the plaintiff moved an application (I.A. 8862/2006) complaining that despite the ex-parte injunction, the defendants were violating the Courts order. On 23rd August, 2006, the Court directed the SHO, Nangloi to compliance and enforcement of the order of this Court.
6. The plaintiff has, in support of its case relied upon the affidavit of Mr. Subhash Chachra dated 10th October, 2007. The said witness PW-1 affirmed the contents of this affidavit in a statement recorded on 24.12.2008. PW-1 has generally deposed in support of the plaint averments. He alleges about an incident concerning Ms. Asha Sharma by one of the defendants Suresh Babu. He has marked a copy of the complaint dated 10.3.2006 as Ex. PW-1/1. The witness is also marked a copy of the First Information Report to the police regarding the incident on the same day, as Ex. PW-1/2. PW-1 has further adverted to the same incident and its reporting to the Assistant Labour Commissioner by letter Ex. PW-1/3. In support of the case that illegal strikes and slogan shouting and other acts of misbehaviour took place, the plaintiff has relied through PW-1 on documents Ex. PW-1/4, PW-1/5 and PW-1/6.
7. The witness has also deposed that despite this Courts order restraining the defendants from holding demonstrations and dharna, in a blatant show of defiance they are indulging themselves in the contemptuous act of f
