( 1 ) IN the conflict between labour and management where Workers resort to demonstration slogan-shouting satyagrahas go-slow and even strikes in order to bring pressure upon the employer so that the demands made by them be accepted by the employer would it be wise and prudent for the Civil Court to intervene and grant injunction in favour of employer and restrain the workmen from resorting to demonstration slogan-shouting etc. ? In such type of conflicts there is no undisputed right of either party hence would it not amount to taking side with a party which may even impair the image of the Court? What should be the relevant considerations while deciding the question of grant or refusal of injunction in the matters connected with labour disputes? These are some of the important questions which have surfaced in this appeal from order. 1 A. The appellant-plaintiff is a firm of advocates and solicitors practising their profession of law as such. The defendants Nos. 2 to 12 are the employees of the plaintiff-firm and defendant No. 1 is a trade union registered under the provisions of the trade Unions Act 1926

( 2 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order passed by the City Civil Court Ahmedabad by which the Court refused to grant injunction restraining defendant No. 1 Union and defendants Nos. 2 to 12 the employees of the plaintiff-firm from obstructing hindering and or shouting and printing slogans. affixing posters near the gate of High Court and around the Compound of the office premises of the plaintiff and from abandoning the work which they were required to complete and from staging demonstration or holding meeting in and around the office premises and also from causing damage to the properties of the employer.

( 3 ) TILL November 1983 the relations between the plaintiff-firm on the one hand and the defendants Nos. 2 to 12 on the other hand were quite cordial. But according to the plaintiff in the month of November 1983 one Miss Havawala an employee of the firm resigned. Thereafter defendant No. I Union requested the plaintiff to treat her resignation as cancelled. This request was turned down by the plaintiff. It also appears that the defendant. Union submitted a charter of demands dated 24/01/1984. The demands pertained to increase in wages and other conditions of service. In the month of February 1934 negotiations were held between the plaintiff-firm and the defendants. According to the plaintiff since the defendants insisted upon the acceptance of the charter of demands the negotiations failed. After the failure of the negotiations the defendants started pasting posters containing slogans and started shouting slogans every day at the entrance of the office premises of the plaintiff-firm. In the month of March 1984 further activities of the defendants by way of painting on roads and of shouting slogans and circulating pamphlets took place. On account of such activities the plaintiff contends it became impossible to do the work in the office. On 16/03/1984 the plaintiff filed the suit being Civil Suit No. 1106 of 1984 in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad and prayed for permanent injunction as stated hereinabove.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff had taken out notice of motion and ad-interim relief was granted by the trial court. The defendants appeared in the proceedings and inter alia contended that the suit was beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the civil court and it was not maintainable. The defendants contended that in such a suit an injunction as prayed for cannot be granted since the matter was within the scope of definition of trade dispute. Therefore the suit was barred by the provisions of section 18 of the Trade Unions Act 1926 and at any rate the dispute was required to be resolved by an appropriate forum under the relevant labour legislation. According to the defendant this was no. a ease 111 which the court should exercise its discretion in favour of granting injunction as there was no prima facie case and the