The central legal point established in the judgment is that while trade unions have the right to peacefully ventilate their grievances, they cannot disrupt the functioning of the business or damage the property by resorting to demonstrations, gheraos, etc.

Manmohan Singh, J. (Oral)

1. No one appears on behalf of defendants. For the last many dates they are not appearing and they have also failed to pay the costs. After imposing the costs they lost their interest and they did not participate in the proceedings.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has made his submissions on merit.

3. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants, its members, agents, representatives, associates and servants.

4. The plaintiff is a renowned college of University of Delhi. Defendant No.1 is an organisation of non-teaching employees of University of Delhi of which defendant No. 2 is the general secretary and defendant No.3 is the president. Defendant No.3 is also an employee of the plaintiff.

5. It is the case for the plaintiff that defendants have been time to time holding loud demonstrations and agitation inside the premises of the plaintiff using microphones and loudspeakers which adversely affects the academic activities therein. These types of demonstrations and threatening language are becoming a regular feature of the defendants. While employees working continue to hold demonstrations and agitations at the instigation of defendant No.1, they force their college members to completely disregard their duties or perform them in an extremely cursory manner. The employees argue that the demonstrations and agitation on instigation of defendant No.1 would not amount to either leave or dereliction of duty and hence they would be entitled to their salaries and non-payment thereof would lead to ugly situations.

6. The relevant facts leading to the present suit arte that the defendant sent a communication dated 30th July, 2011 to the Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi making an allegation against the Principal of the plaintiff that the Principal had filed a criminal case against defendant No.3. In another communication dated 2nd August, 2011 addressed to the Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi, it was stated that the plaintiff filed an FIR against Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhary, Administrative Officer of the plaintiff. It has been stated by the plaintiff that Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhary had threatened to murder Dr. P.K. Malhotra, Convener of the Admission Committee of the plaintiff with pistol and/or crush him under his car. This was immediately followed by a serious threat by Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhary to the Vice Principal, Dr. P.N. Duttagupta with dire consequences. The plaintiff was well within its right to file criminal complaint against him. The threatened agitation is an attempt to coerce and pressurize plaintiff to withdraw the said FIR.

7. On 3rd July, 2011 one employee of the plaintiff Mr. Chand Ram, Lab. Assistant, Department of Physics indulged in gross misconduct at residence of a teacher Dr. P.N. Duttagupta and his daughter. A complaint was lodged with the P.S. Maurice Nagar. The threatened agitation is an attempt to coerce and pressurize plaintiff to withdraw the said FIR.

8. On 3rd August, 2011, defendants sent a letter to the principal of the plaintiff making allegation against him and threatened to once again disturb the normalcy of plaintiff if all their demands were not resolved within two days. The said letter was relied to vide letter dated 4th August, 2011 whereby the principal replied to all the issues raised by the Ramjas College Karamchari Union and offered to meet them to resolve all issues. The principal wrote to the defendants on 5th August, 2011 assuring them that plaintiff is looking into all issues raised by them and requested them to call off their strike and demonstration in view thereof. However, defendants rejected the offer of the plaintiff.

9. On 6th August, 2011, principal received a communication dated 5th August, 2011 from the defendants stating that they shall sit on a Dharna in front of the principal’s office at the plaintiff college with effect from 10 A.M. On 9th August, 2011 wi