Asian Hotels Employees Union And ... vs Asian Hotels Ltd.
1999 Latest Caselaw 1104 Del

ORDER

1. This Appeal is against an Order dated October 8, 1999 by which the Appellants' Union has been restrained from holding any demonstrations or dharnas within 80 meters from the boundary of Hotel Hyatt Regency. It is submitted that 80 meters is too great a distance. It is submitted that the Appellants should have been permitted to hold peaceful demonstration and dharna at the door steps of the Hotel. It is submitted that peace ful demonstrations and/or dharnas are recognised trade union activities. Reliance is placed upon a Judgment in the case of Patel Oil Mills v. Relaxo Rubber and Allied Industries Employees Union and Ors. reported in (1999-I-LLJ- 894) (Del) in support of this proposition.

2. In the case relied upon the concerned industry was a Mill and/or a factory. In the present case the Respondents are running a hotel. The hotel industry is a hospitality industry. The hotel industry is at present very competitive. In a hotel industry the hotel has to ensure the comfort of each guest and to make sure that their stay is pleasant. Any unsavoury incident or any sign or unpleasantness would have the potential to scare away the customers and mar the image of the hotel. Having employees demonstrate at the gate of the hotel, even though they may be demonstrating peacefully, would mar the image of that hotel.

3. The learned single Judge has prescribed a distance of only 80 metres. According to us the learned single Judge prescribed a very short distance considering that this is to be outside a hotel, However, that being within the discretion of the learned single Judge we see no reason (sic.) to interfere.

4. It must be remembered that even though holding demonstration and dharna may be recognised Trade Union activities such rights cannot be allowed to be exercised in a manner which cause harm and/or prejudice the rights of others. Demonstrations and hernias can be permitted or carried out provided they do not in any manner cause a nuisance or harm to the potential business. Thus by permitting a distance the rights of both parties are upheld. The Appellants rights to hold demonstration and/or dharna is not restricted unreasonably , and it is ensured that no harm or prejudice is caused to the Respondents. We thus see no reason to interfere. The appeal thus stands dismissed.