Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.S.Shah
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OFFICERS association (GUJARAT)* - Respondent
Civil Appeal 99 of 1997
Decided On : 08/05/1997
A persual of the notice of motion clearly shows that the demonstrations and activities which were being carried on by the respondent union in the purported exercise of their right to carry on agitation and other lawful activities clearly took their case out of the protected sphere of Sec. 18 of the Act and therefore, prima facie the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the present nature filed by the plaintiff bank. The averments also within the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
[Para 12]
(b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 - Grant of injunction against respondent union from carrying on agitation within Bank premises - Validity - Court having found that demonstration did not remain peaceful but turned violent having potential of disturbing normal business activities of the plaintiff bank granted the impugned injunction - Held, City Civil Court was justified in its order & thus committed no illegality specially when no grievance is made against plaintiff back disentitling it of the said order.
The contention is misconceived because the demonstrations did not remain peaceful but some of them turned violent and tortious apart from actually disturbing or having the potential of disturbing the normal business activities of the plaintiff bank. Hence the City Civil Court was justified in granting interim injunction restraining the respondent Union from carrying on agitational activities like demonstrations, dharnas, shouting slogans, etc., within the premises of the plaintiff bank.
[Para 13]
It is true that the right to carry on agitational activities like holding demonstrations and dharnas is considered to be a part of employees rights. However, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that afterall banks, especially public sector banks, are established for rendering banking services to the society at large in general and to their customers in particular. If the bank employees are permitted to carry on agitational activities like shouting slogans, dharnas, etc., within branches/office premises of the plaintiff bank, the banking operations would be disrupted even if they do not come to a standstill. Of course the rights of the employees are important but while construing the extent and ambit of such rights the Court cannot be oblivious of the consequences of uncontrolled, untrammelled and irresponsible manner of assertion of their rights which may hurt the very unsituation which as a public service institution must be in a position to maintain its service oriented image to prosper or even to survive as an institution.
[Para 14]
In the instant case no grievance is made on behalf of the defendant Union that the plaintiff bank has contravened any such labour legislations or that the attitude of the management of the plaintiff bank towards its officers/employees is such or so obviously unreasonable that the bank is disentitled to the grant of injunction. Under the circumstances the Trial Court was justified in granting the interim injunction.
[Para 15]
(c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 - Injunction against respondent union - Territorial limits of - Agitation programme is carried on at branches of plaintiff bank at Anand, Baroda, Jamnagar, Bhuj & many other places in pursuance to calls given by defendant union - Workers indulging in agitation are members of defendant union - In the fact situation merely because the highest administrative office of plaintiff bank of Gujarat Zone is located at Ahmedabad & registered office of defendant union is also Ahmedabad - Operation sphere injunction can be allowed to remain confined to offices/branches of plaintiff bank located within the city of Ahmedabad - Interim injunction must be made applicable to all branches/offices of plaintiff bank in the entire State of Gujarat.
In Court view, the Trial Court was not justified in confining operation of the interim injunction to the offices/branches of the plaintiff bank within the city of Ahmedabad, merely because the highest administrative office of the plaintiff bank in Gujarat zone is at Ahmedabad and the registered office of the defendant Union is also at Ahmedabad. The agitational programme is launched by the defendant Union and its members as per the calls being given by the office bearers of the Union having their registered office at Ahmedabad; and as stated in the notice of motion, the agitational activities were being carried on at the branches of the plaintiff bank at Anand, Baroda, Jamnagar, Bhuj and many other places. The employees of the plaintiff bank outside the city of Ahmedabad and within Gujarat Zone, who are carrying on or likely to carry on agitational activities are admittedly members of the defendant Union. In this fact situation, the inerim injunction was not required to be confined to the offices/branches of the plaintiff bank within the city of Ahmedabad and, therefore, the interim injunction must be made applicable to all the branches/offices of the plaintiff bank in the entire Gujarat zone.
[Para 19]
( 1 ) BOTH these appeals were admitted and taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties. The appeals are directed against the orders dated January 30, 1997 and February 17, 1997 passed by the City civil Court, Ahmedabad below Applications Exhs. 6, 14 and 19 in Civil Suit No. 6095 of 1996. Since the Appeals are directed against the same orders, with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, both these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as per their position in the suit.
( 2 ) CIVIL Suit No. 6095 of 1996 has been filed by the Central Bank of India (plaintiff), having its Gujarat Zonal Office at 4th Floor, Central Bank Building, Lal darwaja, Ahmedabad. The respondent (defendant) is the Central Bank Officers association (Gujarat), a registered trade union having registered office at First Floor, central Bank Building, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff-Bank the defendant-Union has embarked upon an agitational programme to disrupt the functioning of the plaintiff Bank, so as to pressurise the Bank to concede their illegal demands and therefore, demonstrations, dharnas, relay hunger strikes, shouting of slogans, etc. , are being held inside and outside the office/branch premises all over Gujarat. The plaintiff Bank has filed the present civil suit for permanent and temporary injunction to restrain the defendant union and its members from carrying on any such demonstrations, dharnas, shouting of slogans, etc. , inside and/or outside within 200 mts. of office/branch premises. The plaintiff Bank accordingly took out a notice of motion in the aforesaid suit praying for the interim injunction in the aforesaid terms.
( 4 ) THE defendant Union had filed Caveat Application. When the notice of motion first came up for hearing before the traial Court on December 30, 1996 the defendant union prayed for time till January 3, 1997 and it was stated that they will not resort to any type of agitation till January 3, 1997. On that day the respondent filed its reply and therefore, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff Bank submitted application ex. 14 praying for reasonable time to file a rejoinder and also praying for a direction to defendant to maintain status quo. Hence, by order January 3, 1997 below Ex. 14, the trail Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo till further order. Thereafter the defendant Union moved application Ex. 19 on January 30, 1997 for permission to withdraw its conditional consent given on January 3, 1997 and also to vacate the order of status quo passed on January 3, 1997 so far as it related to the defendant Union.
( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, the City Civil Court, ahmedabad by order dated January 30, 1997 disposed of Applications Exhs. 14 and 19 in the following terms :"the defendant may hold demonstration or shout slogans or any other legal activity, but not within the premises of the plaintiff bank. The defendant would be at liberty to carry on their demonstration etc. outside the premises of the plaintiff bank, its branches, regional office in such a way that ingress and egress of the public is not being restrained or disturbed or affected. This order is made applicable to the branches, regional offices and other offices of the plaintiff bank situated within the city of Ahmedabad. "thereafter on February 17, 1997 the City Civil Court confirmed the ad interim order dated January 30, 1997 as interim order during the pendency of the suit and disposed of the Notice of Motion at Ex. 6 accordingly.
( 6 ) THE aforesaid orders dated January 30, 1997 and February 17, 1997 are challenged by the plaintiff bank in A. O. No. 99 of 1997 and by the respondent Union in A. O. No. 176 of 1997. The defendant Union has challenged the interim order in so far as the Union and its members are restrained from carrying
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
