Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 549
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
The Federal Bank Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Federal Bank Officers’ Association – Respondent
O.P. (C) No. 2332 of 2023
Decided On : 18-06-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Latha Anand, M.N. Radhakrishna Menon, K.R. Pramoth Kumar, S. Vishnu, Vivek Chib, Atul Shankar Vindon, Mansi Gupta, Sidharth P.S.
For the Respondents: P.S. Sujeth, R. Arun, M.P. Unnikrishnan, K. Ramakumar, Abhilash N.
IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle of balancing fundamental rights, particularly the right to protest and the right to carry on business, and emphasizes the need to regulate protests to prevent interference with the employer's business.
Headnote:
Trade Union - Injunction - Indian Companies Act - Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India - Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC - Railway Board, New Delhi and Another vs. Niranjan Singh, AIR 1969 SC 966 - Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2012) 10 SCC 603 - K.S. Puttaswamy and Another vs. Union of India and Others, (2017) 10 SCC 1 - Orchid Employees’ Union and Others vs. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2008) 11 SCC 184 - Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Grindlyas Bank Employees’ Association and Others, 2002 (2) LLJ 174 (Cal) - Punjab and Sind Bank vs. Punjab and Sind Officers Joint Action Committee, 1998 (1) LLN 271 (Del) - Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pargatisheel Mazdoor Sangh, Delhi Pradesh and Others, CDJ 2000 DHC 1057 - Food Corporation of India, Chennai vs. Employees of Food Corporation of India, Chennai, CDJ 2000 MHC 495 - Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Maruti Udyog Employees’ Union and Others, CDJ 2002 DHC 601
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a banking company, sought injunction against a trade union to restrain them from obstructing bank officials and customers, holding protests, and causing damage to bank property. The trial court granted the injunction, which was modified by the appellate court. The petitioner challenged the modification.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found in favor of the petitioner, granting the injunction based on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The appellate court concurred but modified the injunction, considering the trade union's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was the extent to which a trade union's right to protest could be restricted by injunction, balancing it against the rights of the employer and the smooth functioning of the business.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the fundamental rights of the trade union with the rights of the employer, citing precedents and legal principles. It emphasized the need to strike a balance when two fundamental rights compete and to regulate protests to prevent interference with the employer's business.
Final Decision: The court modified the injunction, restraining the trade union from protesting within a radius of 50 meters from the bank's premises, balancing the rights of both parties.
JUDGMENT :
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
1. This original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P7 judgment passed by the Additional District Court, North Paravur (for short the appellate court) in CMA No. 25/2021, dated 16th October 2023.
2. The petitioner, the Federal Bank Ltd. is a banking company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The respondent is the Federal Bank Officers’ Association, a trade union which comprises officers in the cadre of Scale 1 to III (i.e. Assistant Managers, Managers and Senior Managers) of the petitioner’s Bank as its members. The petitioner instituted a suit as OS No. 204/2020 before the Munsiff’s Court, Aluva (for short ‘the trial court’) against the respondent for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent, its members and supporters from obstructing the bank officials and customers from dealing with the bank, obstructing the ingress and egress of them, committing any acts of waste or damage to the bank’s property, holding any meeting or demonstration, dharna, erecting of tents, displaying posters and banners, shouting slogans within a radius of 200 metres from the premises of the head office, annex and nearby branches of the petitioner bank which are specifically described in the properties scheduled in the plaint and also for a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the notice board, hoardings, banners and posters displayed in the plaint schedule properties.
3. Three items of properties are described in the plaint schedule. The plaint A schedule is the property where the head office of the petitioner’s bank is situated. The Plaint B schedule property is the property where the training centre of the petitioner’s bank functions, and the Plaint C schedule property is the property where the administrative office of the petitioner’s bank functions. According to the petitioner, the plaint A and B schedule properties are in its absolute possession and ownership, and the plaint C schedule property is in its possession under the lease agreement. It is alleged that on 3/6/2020, the respondent and a few of its office bearers, without any notice or intimation, held a surprise dharna in front of the head office of the petitioner’s bank at Aluva situated in the plaint A schedule property, holding posters, banners and placards in protest against the transfers of its employees and displayed a poster containing false and misleading contents in the notice board in the plaint A schedule property. The suit was immediately instituted apprehending further trespass and agitation in an intensified manner.
4. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC. The respondent filed Ext.P3 counter affidavit to the injunction application. After hearing both sides in detail, the trial court allowed Ext.P2 injunction application whereby, the respondent, its members and supporters were restrained from obstructing the bank officials and customers from dealing with the bank, obstructing their ingress and egress and committing any act of waste or damage to the petitioner bank’s property. They were also restrained from holding any meeting, demonstration, dharna, erecting of tents, displaying posters, banners and shouting slogans within a radius of 200 metres from the premises of the head office and nearby branches of the petitioner’s bank at Aluva till the disposal of the suit. Ext.P5 is the said order. Assailing Ext.P5, the respondent preferred appeal before the appellate court as CMA No. 25/2021. After hearing both sides, the appellate court allowed the appeal in part and modified Ext.P5 order as under:
“Restraining the respondent and its members from obstructing the ingress and egress of the officials and customers, from committing any act of waste or damage in the plaint schedule properties and in any manner conducting any protest or demonstration so as to cause obstruction to the peaceful functioning of the Banks and office
