Back
1982 ILLJ 123 Mad
S Dev
Indian Bank
Versus
Federation Of Indian Bank Employees Union And Anr.
Decided on: 9/3/1981
.
INDIAN BANK V. FEDERATION OF INDIAN BANK EMPLOYEES UNIONS - INTERIM INJUNCTION - TRADE UNION ACTIVITIES - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - BANKING REGULATION ACT - CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT - POLICE DUTIES - CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - ABUSE OF PROCESS - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - INDUSTRIAL PEACE AGREEMENT - DISMISSAL OF SUIT - JURISDICTION - CAUSE OF ACTION - CIVIL NATURE OF DISPUTE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-Indian Bank, Madras is the applicant herein and respondents 1 and 2 are the Federation of the Indian Bank Employees Unions and the Indian Bank Employees Union. The reliefs claimed in this application are for passing an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from holding any meeting or staging any demonstration or resorting to any other similar form of direct action within the premises of the plaintiff Bank's Central office or any of its offices and branches in Tamil Nadu, and within a radius 50 meters of these places and obstructing directly or other wise officers, employees, members of the public, etc., from entering such places and preventing the officers, employees, etc., from attending to their normal duties and putting up hand-bills, placards, flags etc., by affixing them on the walls or in any other place in the buildings except in places which have been specifically allotted to the first defendant, and affixing posters, hand-bills and the like on card-boards or other packings and placing them inside or out side the premises and for passing such other orders.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the plaintiff-Bank was not entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from holding meetings, demonstrations, or affixing posters within the premises of the Bank or within a radius of 50 meters thereof. The Court found that the plaintiff-Bank had not come to Court with clean hands, as it had failed to implement a solemn agreement with the defendants' union regarding promotion policy. The Court also found that the plaintiff-Bank had other remedies available to it, such as taking disciplinary action against employees who engaged in unlawful activities or filing a complaint with the police. The Court further held that the suit was not maintainable, as the dispute was covered by the Industrial Disputes Act and the Banking Regulation Act. The Court also found that the agreement entered into between the parties had brought about industrial peace and that there was no need for the Court to pass any orders in the injunction application.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff-Bank was entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from holding meetings, demonstrations, or affixing posters within the premises of the Bank or within a radius of 50 meters thereof. 2. Whether the plaintiff-Bank had come to Court with clean hands. 3. Whether the plaintiff-Bank had other remedies available to it. 4. Whether the suit was maintainable. 5. Whether the agreement entered into between the parties had brought about industrial peace and that there was no need for the Court to pass any orders in the injunction application.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the plaintiff-Bank was not entitled to an interim injunction because: a. The plaintiff-Bank had not come to Court with clean hands, as it had failed to implement a solemn agreement with the defendants' union regarding promotion policy. b. The plaintiff-Bank had other remedies available to it, such as taking disciplinary action against employees who engaged in unlawful activities or filing a complaint with the police. c. The suit was not maintainable, as the dispute was covered by the Industrial Disputes Act and the Banking Regulation Act. d. The agreement entered into between the parties had brought about industrial peace and that there was no need for the Court to pass any orders in the injunction application. 2. The Court found that the plaintiff-Bank had not come to Court with clean hands, as it had failed to implement a solemn agreement with the defendants' union regarding promotion policy.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the plaintiff-Bank's application for an interim injunction and dismissed the suit.
1. The plaintiff-Indian Bank, Madras is the applicant herein and respondents 1 and 2 are the Federation of the Indian Bank Employees Unions and the Indian Bank Employees Union. The reliefs claimed in this application are for passing an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from holding any meeting or staging any demonstration or resorting to any other similar form of direct action within the premises of the plaintiff Bank's Central office or any of its offices and branches in Tamil Nadu, and within a radius 50 meters of these places and obstructing directly or other wise officers, employees, members of the public, etc., from entering such places and preventing the officers, employees, etc., from attending to their normal duties and putting up hand-bills, placards, flags etc., by affixing them on the walls or in any other place in the buildings except in places which have been specifically allotted to the first defendant, and affixing posters, hand-bills and the like on card-boards or other packings and placing them inside or out side the premises and for passing such other orders.
2. In the plaint it is stated that the employees are governed by a Code of Discipline and other regulations and the plaintiff management imposes a wage cut of day's salary on one or its sub-staff employed in Central Office for his deliberate failure to do the work allotted to him. Which resulted in both the defendants starting an agitation to annual the action taken by the Bank. On 20-12-1980 closing time, nearly 70 to 80 persons belonging to the union of defendants entered the room of the Deputy General Manager (Personal) and indulged in violent, unlawful and disorderly acts and during the entire period of there, he was humiliated, abused and intimidated and it is only after the arrival of the police after nearly 3 1/2 hours, they dispersed. However, as attempts to effects proper settlement failed the plaintiff-Bank took measures to safeguard its interests by suspension of 11 employees, among the persons who carried out the gherao pending disciplinary action, and 16 employees were transferred. Thereafter, defendants 1 and 2 called for a course of agitation like relay hunger strike, dharna as well as demonstrations in front of the Central Office and playcards containing abusive expressions and slogans and they were placed all over the premises belonging to the plaintiff. Paper posters with caricatures were pasted on the walls of the building belonging to the plaintiff. They have also indulged in preventing ingress and egress of members of staff, visitors, customers as well as the tenants of the plaintiff-Bank premises, On 2-1-1981 they organised an illegal strike. In spite of advice tendered by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Madras the agitation by the defendants is still going on. The Indian Bank Officers Association has objected to the manner in which the defendants are Conducting themselves and a trade union called Indian Bank Staff Union, having a substantial following has denounced all the acts being committed by the defendants. The plaintiff bank after having exhausted all available sources of making the defendants to see reasons; has no other alternative except to approach this court for protection under law, in order to carry on its normal activities in public interest and as enjoined by the statutes. It is a for this purpose, the suit is laid for a permanents injunction restraining defendants from committing the various acts which are mentioned in paragraph 17 of the plaint, and which are in the interlocutory application.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, reference is also made to earlier orders passed by this Court in Application No. 4858 of the 1979 in C.S. No. 496 of 1979 as well as Application Nos., No, 4901 of 1979 and 38 of the 1980 in C.S. No. 655 of 1979 in respect of matters which pertain to banking institutions.
4. In the counter-affidavit, it is averred that the applicant has
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
