Ashoka Machine Tools Corporation vs Bhartiya Udyogic General Kamgar ...
1994 Latest Caselaw 108 Del

JUDGMENT

P.N. Nag, J.

(1) Ia 6007/93 is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction against the defendants from making any demonstration/gherao/assembly/dharna within a radius of 400 yards of plaintiff"s factory situated at A-15, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase l,Delhi and the residential houses bearing Nos. 146 and 130, Block J, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi and further causing any obstructions in the ingress and egress of the plaintiff's partners, staff and workers and other members concerned with the plaintiff or stopping any vehicle or for movement of the material taking in and taking out from the plaintiff's factory premises. This application was filed along with the suit.

(2) Suit and the application, Ia 6007/93, came up for preliminary hearing before court on 7.7.1993. While admitting the suit and issuing notice of the application, this court on 7.7.1993 granted ex parte injunction in the following terms: "...NOTICEfor 18th August. 1993. in the meantime, the defendants or their representatives are restrained from making any denionstration/ gherao/assembly /dharna within a radius of 200 meters of plaintiff's factory situated at A-15, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase-I, Delhi and residential house bearing No.146 and 130. Block 'J' Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. 1 The defendants or their representatives arc further restrained from causing any obstruction in the ingress and egress of the plaintiffs to the factory."

(3) Arguments in part were heard on the application on 27.10.1993 and orders reserved on 28.10.1993.

(4) The relevant facis for disposing of this application, asset out in the plaint, are that the plaintiff firm is having its industrial activities at A-15,Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase- I, Delhi for the last more than 30 years and substantially engaged in the manufacture of gears, pinions, gear boxes and machine tools and such like other equipments. According to the plaintiff,defendant No.2 has coine in the area for the last about two months. Although defendant No.2 is a doctor of medicines, but he claims himself to be the General Secretary of defendant No.1 having its registered office at B-403,Gali No.7, Hari Nagar.Delhi- 110027 (Bhartiya Udyogic General Kamgar Union). Defendant No.2 is misguiding the workers of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has received a letter dated 13.5.1993, being the General Secretary of defendant No. 1, raising certain demands. Although, according to the plaintiff, these demands amounts to black mailing the plaintiff, in spite of that certain demands have been carried out by the plaintiff. In spile of that defendant No.2 has instigated the workers and immediately on issuing of the letter dated 13.5.1993,prompted some of the workers to disturb the peace and public tranquility and excited them to stop work and to cause damage and loss to the machinery. Although the majority of the workers are with the plaintiff but some of the workers are playing in the hands of defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 has been causing harassment and threatening them not to enter upon the works of the plaintiff, with the result there is apprehension of breach of peace and as such a report was lodged wilh the police authorities on 15.5.1993. Although the plaintiff has been requesting the defendants to sit across the table and sort out the matter but of no use. Defendants, specifically defendant No.2, on the closing hours of 3.7.1993 threatened that in case their demands are not met latest by Monday, i.e., 5.7.1993. they would not permit to carry on the work and they will make demonstration/dharna, stop ingress and egress of the workers, staff persons, movement of the vehicles taking in raw materials and taking out the finished products. Defendants, specifically defendant No. 2, has threatened that they will make demonstration/gherao/dhama and will not permit any functioning of the plaintiff company by 5.30 P.M.of 8.7.1993. Dharna/demonstration is also being joined by some unauthorised persons of the industrial belt. In these circumstances the present suit has been filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction from making any demonstration/gherao/assembly/dharna within a radius of 400 yards of plaintiff's factory situated at A-15. Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi and the residential houses of plaintiff's partners, viz.. House Nos. 146 and 130, J Block, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi.

(5) No reply has been filed to Ia 6007/93 by the defendants. However, the defendants have filed written statement wherein they have denied the averments made in the plaint. However, the preliminary objections taken by the defendants in the written statement may be noted. One of the preliminary objections taken by the defendants is that no cause of action has arisen against the defendants. The suit was filed to restrain the defendants from making demonstration on8.7.1993and the order dated 7.7.1993passed by this court in Ia 6007/93 has been dutifully obeyed by the defendants and there is no further apprehension by the plaintiff of breach of peace and public tranquility from the side of the defendants. Even otherwise the defendants have undertaken in the written statement to demonstrate/stage dharna as and when necessary peacefully and they would not interfere in the functioning of the factory.

(6) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Counsel for the plaintiff has cited certain authorities wherein the courts have granted injunction. According to counsel for the plaintiff this is a fit case where the injunction, as prayed for, should be granted. Some of the judgments cited by counsel for the plaintiff are (i) A.E.P.C. v. A.E.P.C. Employees Union (Regd.) (IA No.4909/87 in S.1042/87 - decided by Jagdish Chandra, J. on 25.9.1987): (ii) Mls The Associaton of State Road Transport Undertakings v. The Association of State Road Transport Undertaking Employees' Union (Regd.) and others (1986 Lab. I.C. 1543): and Smt. Premanand etc. v. The Management of Hulekal Group Service Cooperative Society Ltd. and another etc. (1986 Lab.I.C. 1547).

(7) On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants, has submitted that the defendants have dutifully obeyed this court's order dated 7.7.1993 passed in Ia 6007/93 and he, under instructions from the defendants, undertakes to the court on behalf of his clients that the defendants will not hold/stage demonstration/dharna/gherao/assembly etc. before the factory premises of the plaintiff and will not stop the ingress and egress to the houses of partners of plaintiff, i.e. houses bearing Nos. 146 & 130, J Block, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi in future and further they will not cause any obstruction in the ingress and egress to the factory infuture. In case they have to assert any right permissible under the law, they will do so in legitimate manner and in accordance with the law.

(8) I have considered the matter and rival contentions of the parties. No doubt in certain cases, injunction has been issued by various courts restraining the defendants from staging/holding dharna/demonstration/gherao/ assembly etc. outside the factory premises within a particular distance but it is not necessary that in every case, the injunction must necessarily be issued. This depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. In the present case, the defendants in the written statement have clearly stated that they have dutifully obeyed the orders dated 7.7.1993 passed by this court and therefore the alleged threat of the defendants of 8.7.1993 does not survive. Further, the defendants have further undertaken not to demonstrate/gherao/ assemble etc. outside the factory and not to stop ingress and egress to the factory and houses of partners of plaintiff and not to obstruct the functioning of the plaintiff factory. This undertaking of the defendants has been further clapfied by counsel for the defendants in court. In view of such an undertaking given by counsel for the defendants in court and in the written statement, in my opinion there is no necessity of issuing any injunction against the defendants in the present facts and circumstances. In fact, in view of such an undertaking, this application has become infructuous. At any rate, if at any time, the defendants violate the undertaking given by the defendants in the written statement and further by learned counsel for the defendants in court and accepted by the court, the plaintiff are at liberty to approach this court for necessary orders/directions.

(9) In the light of what is discussed above, this application is dismissed.

(10) In the facts and circumstances of this case. however, I make no order as to costs.