Patel Oil Mills vs Relaxo Rubber & Allied Industries ...
1998 Latest Caselaw 774 Del

ORDER

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.

1. This order will dispose of the applications filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC registered as I.A. Nos. 5196/1998 and 5263/1998 as also the application filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC registered as I.A. No. 5697/1998.

2. In the applications filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has sought for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-Union and the workmen from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the ingress and egress of employees, visitors and also from causing blockade, dharna, gherao, demonstration, slogan shouting at the plaintiffs' factory /office/residence namely (i) Patel Oil Mills, F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi, (ii) Patel Oil Mills, Allied House, 3rd Floor, Inderlok Chowk, Delhi and (iii) E-13, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

3. On the aforesaid applications, this Court by order dated 17.6.1998 passed an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, members and friends from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the ingress and egress of employees, visitors, material and also from causing blockade at the plaintiffs' aforesaid premises. This Court further passed an order restraining the defendants from carrying out any violent demonstration at the plaintiffs' aforementioned premises. It was, however, clarified by the aforesaid order that the aforesaid order would not come on the way of the defendants from holding any peaceful demonstration and/or picketing at F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi, provided the said demonstration/picketing is not carried out in front of the main entrance and the stores entrance of the said premises.

4. Subsequently by order dated 23.6.1998, in addition to the aforesaid order of injunction granted by the Court, this Court issued a further order of injunction restraining the defendants from holding any demonstration and/or picketing within 250 yds., at F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders restraining the defendants as aforesaid, an application has been filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.

5. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents as aforesaid in the following manner:

"to pass decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, associates, servants and members from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the ingress and egress of the visitors, employees and materials and causing blockade, dharna, gherao, demonstration, slogan shouting, paste posters and causing hooliganism, putting up loud-speakers within the premises or outside the premises within range of 500 meters at the plaintiffs factory/office/residence namely (i) Patel Oil Miss, F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi, (ii) Patel Oil Mills, Allied House, 3rd Floor, Inderlok Chowk, Delhi and (iii) E-13, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi".

In the aforesaid suit, the present application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was filed. It is contended by the counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the defendants have been illegally and unjustifiably holding demonstrations, shouting slogans, causing blockade to the ingress and egress to the employees, visitors to the aforesaid premises, namely, F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi, belonging to the plaintiff. Counsel further submitted that in spite of issuance of order of injunction on 17.6.1998, the workers and the Union leaders were still carrying out the demonstration exactly in front of the factory premises and were blocking the ingress and egress to the factory and to the store of the factory. Counsel during his course of submissions also drew attention of the Court to the various complaints filed by the plaintiff making allegations against the workmen of indulging in violent demonstration and man-handling the executive staff of the plaintiff's company and on the basis thereof submitted that the ad interim injunction passed by this Court should be made absolute in the same terms as is passed by this Court including restraining the defendants from holding any demonstration and/or picketing within 250 yds. of the aforesaid premises at F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi.

In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions of this Court in Punjab & Sind Bank Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Officers Joint Action Committee; reported in 1997 V (5) Apex Decision (Delhi) 359 and The East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Oberoi Intercontinental Hotel Employees Union (Regd.) and others; reported in 1994 IV Apex Decision (Delhi) 392 According to the learned counsel in Punjab & Sind Bank (supra), the Court directed that any demonstration and/or such activities should be carried out 300 meters away from the premises of the plaintiff. In The East India Hotels Ltd.(supra), this Court directed that such demonstration etc., shall be carried out 300 yds. away from the premises of the plaintiff. Counsel also submitted that there are inflammable articles within the factory premises and since the members of the defendant are carrying out violent activities, such a restraint order is a must in order to maintain law and order in the aforesaid area.

6. Refuting the allegations made by the counsel appearing for the plaintiff, counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the aforesaid orders of injunction granted by this Court have amounted to taking away the legal rights of the defendants and their members and workmen to agitate and raise their grievances in a peaceful and democratic manner. It is stated that the plaintiff has been indulging in various acts of unfair labour practices and, therefore, the defendants Union and their members and workmen have sought to exercise their legal rights and resorted to demonstration in a peaceful manner for redressal of their legitimate demands. It was also stated that the unfair labour practices resorted to by the plaintiff was brought to the notice of the Labour Minister, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi who had fixed meetings of both the parties. But, instead of initiating mutual discussions and making endeavour to settle the demands and grievances in lawful manner, the employer-plaintiff declared lockout of the factory on 11.6.1998 and stopped giving work to the workmen. Thereafter, even though the Assistant Labour Commissioner asked the plaintiff employer to come for negotiation and reconciliation, the plaintiff did not appear before the Assistant Labour Commissioner.

Counsel appearing for the defendants denied that the defendants have either resorted to violent demonstration or have created any obstacle in the functioning of the plaintiff establishment. It was also stated by the counsel appearing for the defendants that the site plan on record would indicate that 250 meters would be beyond the national highway, towards North side 250 meters is the Railway line, towards West side, 250 meters is covered by various industrial units and towards East side (back) also there are other industrial units and on the front side 250 meters would be beyond the road. Counsel further submitted that unless the interim order passed by this Court is vacated and/or varied, the same would amount to frustrating the legitimate grievances of the defendant and their members and workmen.

In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions in B.R. Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others; , Kannan (C) Vs. Superintendent of Police, Cannanore; reported in 1975 L.L.J. page 83 and Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd., and another Vs. Simpson and Group Companies Workers' Union and another; reported in 1979 L.L.J. page 284 as also the decision of this Court in The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited Vs. National Confederation of General Insurance Employees and others in I.A. No.1068/1984 in Suit No. 338/1984 disposed of on April 18, 1984.

7. I have carefully perused the facts pleaded in the plaint and the applications as also the decisions relied upon by the counsel appearing for the parties.

8. Demonstrations, gheraos and such other activities are the means and tools through which the workers and the workmen ventilate their grievances against the management. Such activities are recognised as legal trade union activities which is considered to be a peaceful mechanism to display group feelings towards a cause and for redressal of the grievances. Such legitimate trade union activities when and if carried in a peaceful and legal manner are not to be shut out as in that event the same might cause permanent damage to the cause of industrial peace. Such trade union activities are also recognised by the laws of the country. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that no one could be allowed to exercise his right so as to cause harm and prejudice the exercise of right of another. No one could be allowed to physically interfere with the trade and business of the plaintiff. Therefore, in such matters, a balancing scale has to be applied so that the important freedom enjoyed by the trade union activists is restricted only to the extent needed to preserve the proper and efficient functioning of the business of the plaintiff. The equation must be properly balanced so that the rights of the defendants to enjoy their freedom and to exercise their legal rights is not rendered ineffective and illusory and at the same time the business of the plaintiff does not suffer.

9. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants have been physically causing harm to the persons coming to the aforesaid premises at F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi and that complaints have been filed in respect of such incidents. The plaintiff has also alleged that the defendants have been terrorising the willing individual employees from joining duties and there are incidents of physical assaults, abuse and such other physical interference with the activities of the plaintiff. The defendants, however, denied all the aforesaid allegations and stated that in spite of provocation from the plaintiff, the defendants have been carrying out their trade union activities in a most peaceful and legal manner.

10. In the light of the aforesaid allegations and counter allegations, I am of the considered opinion, that a restraint order is to be passed restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the ingress to or egress from the premises at F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi, or from obstructing in any manner the officer, employees, clients, callers, visitors and from doing any acts of violence. It is true that when demonstration, gherao and other such activities are carried out, the same may result in some sort of interference with trade and business of the plaintiff. But, that is an unavoidable consequence of such a trade union activity. But at the same time no one could be allowed to take law into their own hands and, therefore, the defendants also cannot be allowed to physically interfere with the trade and business of the plaintiff.

Thus, the order passed by this Court allowing the defendants to hold peaceful demonstration and/or picketing at F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi, provided such demonstration and/or picketing is carried out in front of the main entrance and the store entrance of the said premises, but, at the same time restraining the defendants, their members and workmen from interfering in any manner whosoever with the ingress and egress of employees, visitors and causing blockades at the plaintiffs premises is found to be justified and valid and the same is made absolute, subject to the directions contained in the penultimate paragraph of this order.

11. Much debate has been raised across the Bar with regard to the distance to be kept by the defendant, their members, workmen while holding any demonstration and/or picketing from the premises at F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi.

12. This Court restrained the defendants from holding any such demonstration or picketing within 250 yds. of the premises at F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi. According to the defendants no restriction can be placed by the Court on the rights of defendants to have demonstration at a particular distance. Learned counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand cited various cases where the Courts have directed keeping of distance of about 330 meters to 200 yds.

13. In my considered opinion as to how much distance should be there is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. For maintaining a measured and specified distance from the premises of the plaintiff could be ordered in order to prevent any act of violence or threat of bodily injury and for causing easy ingress and egress of a willing worker. But, in such cases also the situation and the surroundings of the premises in question have to be taken into active consideration and cannot be lost sight of. No such restriction should be put by the Court which would render ineffective a peaceful strike or to deprive the workers of their legitimate rights.

14. I have considered the totality of the circumstances and the facts of the present case. In the light thereof and also the map placed on record, I am of the considered opinion that any such restriction put by this Court for holding such demonstration and other activities 250 yds., away would mean that the defendant their workers would be beyond the national highway, railways line or that they would be protesting in front of other industrial units which would frustrate and render ineffective the very purpose for which such demonstration or strike is held. Holding of meetings and demonstration as stated above is a legitimate trade union activity and they are resorted to ventilate the grievances against the management. If such demonstrations are carried out from a distant place, the very purpose of holding such demonstrations is frustrated.

15. It is now a normal practice that when meeting or demonstration is held, slogans are shouted and the slogans are shouted to be heard by the Management. The aforesaid normal trade union activity as was held in the case of The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) would be completely frustrated if the workmen are asked to go to such a distant place from where the slogans shouted by them would never reach the ears of the Management. In the said case, this Court did not accept the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff that the meeting should not be allowed to be held within 100 yds. of the office premises. The site plan placed on record in the present case indicates that the main entrance and store entrance in the premises at F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi, is abutting a main road. To maintain a distance of 250 yds. from that entry would mean that the demonstration shall have to be held either in the middle of the road and or the other side of the road. As stated hereinabove on the other three sides 250 yds. means going beyond the national highway, Railway line or to the premises of other industrial units. Therefore, a balancing scale has to be applied in the present case also.

16. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I hold that the defendants can hold meeting, demonstration, dharna and peaceful picketing on the front side footpath where the main entrance and factory entrance are located, but, outside the boundary wall and in a corner of such wall and away from the main entrance and factory entrance in a peaceful and legal manner without in any manner disturbing the ingress and egress from the aforesaid premises. Thus, the order dated 23.6.1998 is made absolute, subject to the following orders and directions which are passed in modification of the order dated 17.6.1998:-

(1) The defendant, its members, workmen and friends are restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the ingress and egress of employees, willing workmen, visitors, officers to the premises of the plaintiff and also from causing any blockade at all the entry points to the aforesaid premises and are also restrained from carrying out any violent demonstration and violent picketing.

(2) It is also ordered that the defendants can hold peaceful meeting, demonstration, dharna and picketing on the front side footpath where the main entrance and factory entrance are located, but, outside the boundary wall and in a corner of such wall and away from the main entrance and factory entrance in a peaceful and legal manner without in any manner disturbing the ingress and egress from the aforesaid premises.

The defendants shall, however, place on record an undertaking to this Court within a week from today that they would not physically prevent ingress or egress of any willing worker and others and would not cause obstruction of movement of goods to and from the premises of the plaintiff and that they would only hold peaceful meeting, demonstration, dharna and picketing in the front portion of the premises of the plaintiff as aforesaid on the footpath on one corner of the premises at F-7, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi, away from the main entrance without in any way obstructing the traffic of the road and also without intimidating and/or physically interfering any officer, employee,worker and visitor of the plaintiff.

17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the applications stand disposed of.