Calcutta High Court
Abbott Healthcare Private Limited vs Federation Of Medical And Sales ... on 25 September, 2025
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
OD-3 and 4
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/271/2025
ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED
VERSUS
FEDERATION OF MEDICAL AND SALES REPRESENTATIVES
ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND ORS.
AND
APOT/272/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025
ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED
VERSUS
FEDERATION OF MEDICAL AND SALES REPRESENTATIVES
ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIA AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Date : 25th September, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Anindya Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arik Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Altamash Alim, Adv.
Mr. Pujon Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Aniket Choudhury, Adv.
Mr. Sutosom Bhattacharyya, Adv.
...for the appellant
Mr. Aninda Lahiri, Adv.
Ms. Dipika Banu, Adv.
Mr. Subhadip Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. Bolivia Roy, Adv.
...for the respondents
2
Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J.
The Court: By consent of the parties, these appeals and the
connected application are taken up for hearing together.
These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated
August 25, 2025, whereby two applications being GA/1/2024 and
GA/3/2024, filed in CS/207/2024 were disposed of by a Learned Judge of
this Court.
GA/1/2024 was an application filed by the plaintiff/appellant
praying for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the
business activities of the plaintiff. On such application, an ex parte ad
interim order was passed on October 7, 2024, the operative portion whereof
reads as follows:-
"Accordingly, the defendants, its office bearers, men, agents,
members and assigns are restrained from creating any
obstruction or hindrance in the running of the business and
working of the plaintiff company and its employees in Kolkata
and throughout the State of West Bengal.
The defendants, its office bearers, men, agents, members and
assigns are also restrained from restraining the plaintiff company
and its employees from meeting doctors in Kolkata as well as in
the State of West Bengal in their respective chambers or
elsewhere in the course of their daily field work till 22nd
November, 2024."
The said order was extended from time to time.
The defendants filed an application being GA/3/2024 for vacating
the aforesaid order.
By the judgment and order impugned in this appeal, both the
applications, i.e., injunction application of the plaintiff and the vacating
application of the defendants, were disposed of. The operative portion of the
order under appeal reads as follows:
"In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, to strike a balance, I
clarify the order dated 7th October, 2024 by permitting the
defendants no.1 and its members from carrying out normal trade
union activities like protest, rally, and dharna but the same
should be beyond 50 meters from the office premises of the
plaintiff company. The defendants, however, will be permitted to
display protest materials or posters in the notice board
maintained in the offices of the plaintiff company. The
defendants and/or the members of the defendant no.1 company
should not intimidate or terrorise any willing employee of the
plaintiff company from either joining the work or in carrying out
the same or from visiting the doctors at their chambers, hospital
and other places.
It is further classified that the plaintiff shall not be entitled to take
any steps or enforce any ban on the protest gatherings, rally,
demonstration or dharna if the same are carried out by the
members of the defendant no.1 in a responsible manner and
strictly in accordance with the provisions of 1926 Act.
It is also clarified that the plaintiff shall not make use of any force
or carry out any oppressive act in preventing lawful trade union
activities in and around the precincts of the office of the plaintiff
company by using the order dated 7th October, 2024, or even
otherwise."
Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has come up by way of these appeals.
Mr. Mitra, Learned Senior Counsel representing the
appellant/plaintiff says that the defendant Union has no connection with
the plaintiff company. The employees of the plaintiff company are not
members of the defendant Union. The Union has no authority to
purportedly espouse the cause of the employees of the plaintiff company in
West Bengal. Unnecessarily and illegally, the defendant Union is creating
disturbance in and around the office premises of the plaintiff company. The
impugned order has further emboldened them to escalate their illegal
activities. The ad interim order that was continuing for a long period should
have been confirmed by the Learned Single Judge instead of passing further
orders. Mr. Mitra submitted that the impugned order should be set aside or
modified clarifying that the ad interim order dated October 7, 2024, shall
continue to operate till the disposal of the suit.
Learned advocate for the defendants strongly disputes the
submission made on behalf of the plaintiff. He relies on a memorandum of
settlement dated May 17, 2023, (page 732 of the stay application) to contend
that the defendant Union represents all the employees of the plaintiff all over
India. He also refers to other communication between the defendant Union
and the plaintiff company to buttress his argument that the defendant
Union is authorised to espouse the cause and represent the interest of the
employees of the plaintiff company.
It may not be necessary for us immediately to decide whether or not
the defendant Union can represent the interest of the employees of the
plaintiff. Even assuming the defendant Union is entitled to do so, what is
clear is that the Union cannot indulge in any activity which will have the
effect of interfering with the business affairs and administration of the
plaintiff company. It is true that every registered trade union can involve
itself in activities permitted under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 strictly
adhering to the provisions thereof. However, in the garb of exercising such
right under the 1926 Act, no Trade Union or any of its members can
adversely affect the interest of any other party, in this case, the plaintiff.
We, therefore, clarify as follows:-
i. The defendants, its office bearers, men, agents, members and
assigns will not be entitled to hold any demonstration or do
anything in pursuance of their right under the Trade Unions
Act within 50 metres of the plaintiff's office premises in
Kolkata and at other places in West Bengal.
ii. The defendants, its office bearers, men, agents, members and
assigns shall have no access to the office premises of the
plaintiff. They will have no right to enter such office premises
unless they are invited by the plaintiff.
iii. The defendants, its office bearers, men, agents, members and
assigns shall not restrain the employees of the plaintiff
company from meeting doctors in Kolkata as well as at other
places in the State of West Bengal, in their respective
chambers or elsewhere in course of their daily field work.
In this connection, we record the submission made on behalf
of the defendants that there is no question of any such
obstruction since all such persons are members of the
defendant Union.
iv. The defendants, its office bearers, men, agents, members and
assigns shall not create any obstruction to or hindrance in the
running of the business and working of the plaintiff company
and its employees in Kolkata and at other places in the State
of West Bengal.
This order will be in operation in the place and stead of the order
that is impugned in these appeals till the disposal of the suit, subject to any
further order that may be passed by the Learned Single Judge.
Since we have not called for affidavits, the allegations in the petitions
are deemed not to be admitted by the respondents.
The appeals and the connected application are disposed of.
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)
(OM NARAYAN RAI, J.)
kc
