M/S. Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. ... vs Pargatisheel Mazdoor Sangh, ...
2000 Latest Caselaw 1248 Del

ORDER

J.D. Kapoor, J.

1. Facing perennial problems of holding demonstrations, dharanas, burning of effigies of the management and holding gate meetings and thereby blocking the egress and ingress of employees of the company and causing hindrance of the entries of the materials and misguiding the workers by making provocative speeches, the plaintiff company has sought through this suit a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, members servants, representatives from holding demonstrations, dharnas, blockade, gherao, shouting slogans, putting up loud-speakers, pasting any banners, causing hindrance in the egress and ingress of the material required for the purpose of the business of the plaintiff within a radius of 500 meters at its following work places:

1. Wings Pharamaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., H-44, Udyog Nagar, Delhi -41.

2. Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., J-13, Udyog Nager , Delhi -41.

3. Wings Pharamaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., B-4/48, Paschim Vihar, Delhi -63.

2. The last such activity of the defendants took place on 1.4.1997 and that gave rise to the instant suit. It is stated in the affidavit that since then the defendants have continued to indulge in the aforesaid activities and hence the need for permanent injunction.

3. None of the defendants responded to the summons of the suit and allowed themselves to be proceeded ex parte.

4. The question as to the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain such a suit which prima facie infringes the constitutional fundamental rights of the citizens has been answered by this Court in various decisions. One of such cases is 1989 (1) LLJ 117, A.E.P.C. vs. A.E.P.C. Employees' Union (Regd.), of this Court wherein Jagdish Chandra, J. has observed that fundamental right of the citizen is to freedom of speech and to assemble peacefully or form association union. This right does not extend to holding meetings and shouting slogans at premises legally belonging to and occupied by another. In 1991 LLR 792, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs. Bhratiya Mahanagar Telephone Karamchari Sangh and others, it was held that neither does the civil suit filed under section 9 of the CPC infringes the provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act nor does it infringe the rights of the labour and workers granted by section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such section 9 of the CPC does not bar the trial of such suits by the civil courts.

5. Reliance was placed on , Food Corporation of India and another vs. Yadav Engineer and Contractor. Under the statute or article 19 of the Constitution Jurisdiction of civil court is not barred under section 9 CPC.

6. Another important aspect that is relevant as to the right to freedom of speech and expression for the purpose of present proceedings is as to what is the nature and extent of right to hold demonstrations and whether such a right is absolute right in terms of article 19 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the right of freedom and speech and of assembling peacefully and grants freedom to form associations as contemplated by clause 9(b) and (c) of the article 19.

7. Again there is unvarying unanimous opinion that such a right is not unfettered or absolute or in the nature of free for all. In 1991 LLR 792, A.D. Singh,J. also dealt with this aspect at great length and placing reliance on , Kameshwar Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar and another; , Railway Board, New Delhi and another vs. Niranjan Singh; 1966 Lab. IC 1543, The Association of State Road Transport Undertakings vs. The Association of State Road Transport Undertakings Employees Union (Regd.) and others observed that every citizen of India has freedom speech and to form associations and unions but there is no right to hold meetings and shout slogans at premises legally occupied by another. Freedom is thus shackled by responsibility. There can be no freedom without responsibility.

8. Without tarrying further on this aspect and without making reference to authorities in this regard I deem that the plaintiff has clearly proved its case by way of affidavit that the defendants have been transgressing the limits of the rights granted to the citizens under article 19 of the Constitution inasmuch as that they have been sitting and holding meetings, demonstrations, burning effigies and holding meetings in the various premises of the plaintiff company and causing hindrance in the egress and ingress of the employees as well as finished and unfinished materials causing blockade etc.

9. The plaintiff company is engaged in manufacturing medicines and thus is a public utility service and entrepreneur. To ensure its efficient and smooth functioning and otherwise limiting the rights of the defendants to the extent granted under article 19 of the Constitution the suit is hereby decreed by way of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants, their agents, members, servants, representatives from holding demonstrations, dharnas, blockade , gherao, shouting slogans, putting up loud speakers, pasting any banners, causing hindrance in the egress and ingress of the material required for the purpose of the business of the plaintiff within a radius of 100 meters at the aforesaid places of the plaintiff. The suit is decreed accordingly.

10. There will be no order as to costs.