Indian Red Cross Society vs Red Cross Blood Bank Employees ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 1631 Del

JUDGMENT

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

1. Indian Red Cross Society (hereinafter described as the plaintiff) asserts that it was a society formed under an Act of Parliament i.e. Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920. As per Section 5 of the Act managing body with the approval of the President makes rules for management, control and proceedings of the society. The main objects of the society are to provide medical and other aid to the sick and wounded and to provide for future administration of various money and gifts received from the public besides nursing and ambulance work. The society started the blood bank at the National Headquarters at Delhi in 1962 with the objective of providing safe blood to save human lives. The Indian Red Cross Society blood bank is the biggest blood bank of the capital. About 40,000 units of blood is collected every year from voluntary and replacing donors. It supplies blood whenever required and even in the national catastrophes.

2. It is asserted that defendant No. 1 (Red Cross Blood Bank Employees Union) claims itself to be a registered union of Red Cross Blood Bank employees. It is not recognised by the management. On 17.10.2000 defendant No. 1 issued a letter to the Minister of Health and Family Welfare who is the Chairman of the Managing Body asking for acceptance of certain demands retrogressively. Thereafter they sent another letter of 17.1.2001 stating that they shall go on agitation was postponed. On 9.3.2001 defendant No. 1 wrote a letter to the plaintiff that as per the Personnel Committee was looking into the matter they have postponed the scheduled agitation.

3. Conciliation proceedings had started but on 9.4.2001 the plaintiff was intimated that defendant No. 1 will start agitation from 16.4.2001 by wearing black badges and thereafter from 27.4.2001 by partial work stoppage and demonstration. The defendants started demonstrating inside the premises. It was accompanied by slogan shouting, abusing the officers of the plaintiff and holding placards. The defendant vide circular of 3.5.2001 had threatened that they would be resorting to demonstration during office hours and they would go on further agitation if the demands are not met by a specified date. These acts have prejudiced the charitable and humanitarian service of the plaintiff. Therefore, suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining defendants from holding any demonstrations, blockade, dharna, picketing, holding placard or from blocking the ingress and egress of the doctors, its employees and patients.

4. During the course of pendency of the suit an application has been filed (IA 4721/2001) seeking an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendants from holding any demonstration, blockade, dharna, picketing, holding placard or blocking ingress and egress of the plaintiffs employees and general public and from shouting slogans within the boundary wall of the premises and 10 meters thereof.

5. In the reply filed the petition as such as been contested. It is asserted that petition is liable to be dismissed because it has become infructuous. The agitation had been withdrawn on 9.5.2001. This fact has been suppressed and therefore petition is liable to fail. In the garb of the present suit it is claimed that the plaintiff is trying to wash away its hand from the compromise that has been arrived at and there is no cause of action for the plaintiff if the document filed by the plaintiff go to show that the demonstration of the defendants had only been partial (two hours)n and peaceful.

6. By this order the above said interim application is proposed to be disposed.

7. During the course of submissions learned counsel for the defendants pointed that since agitation has been withdrawn the present petition must be taken to have become infructuous. In normal course this would have been correct approach but learned counsel for the defendants still pleaded that defendant No. 1 may be given some place within the premises to hold peaceful dharna. Once that had been so pointed necessarily it appears that the agitation as such has not been withdrawn completely so as to prompt the court to reject the application to have become infructuous.

8. The short question that came up for consideration was as to whether in the peculiar facts the defendants should be restrained as claimed by the plaintiff, to hold demonstration, dharna etc. within a specified distance from the premises of the plaintiff or the application necessarily must fail. Reliance on behalf of the defendants was placed on the decision from the Kerala High Court in the case of Kanan v. Superintendent of Police, Cannore 1975 Vol. 1 Page 83. In the cited case during the pendency of the strike in the factory an order had been granted to the management affording police protection. In pursuance to this, the police prevented the workers from offering satyagraha within 200 yards of the factory gate. The action of the police was challenged. The Kerala High Court noted that it is rarely that workmen or their unions come up to this court seeking similar protection from the police against the management. Thereupon it was held that every citizen is entitled to protection from the authorities on whom duty to maintain law and order is imposed so as to enable him to carry on lawful avocation. It was further held that any demonstration or Satyagraha would cause inconvenience to the management. Thereupon the court further held:

".....A lawful demonstration or satyagraha would lose all significance if the workmen are asked to choose a place far away from the business premises for their operation. The management can of course claim that the ingress and egress to their business premises should be protected from obstruction and if there is imminent danger or peril to life or property police should afford that much protection as is necessary to avert such harm....."

9. It is clear from the nature of the findings recorded by the Kerala High Court that demonstrations cannot stop the ingress and egress of others. The demonstration interferes in the working, but observation has further been made that lawful demonstration would lose all significance if workers are asked to choose a place far away from the business premises. The Kerala High Court did not explain as to what would be far away from the business premises. If it is to be taken at the door of the gate one finds in respectful disagreement with the said view. Reasons are obvious. Once it is admitted that demonstrations cause inconvenience to the management and ingress and egress has not to be stopped necessarily demonstrations which is a known source of expression certain rights can only be held at a reasonable distance. A reasonable distance has to be viewed in the light of the facts and circumstances of particular case. Therefore, to that extent the decision of the Kerala High Court will be of little avail to the defendants.

10. At this stage reference can well be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B R Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , the Supreme Court noted that right to form association or union is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. The right to form association or union was recognised for conferring certain rights on the trade unions. The trade unionists are mouth pieces of labour. The bargaining power would be considerably reduced if it is not permitted to demonstrate in a given situation. The Supreme Court was not concerned in the cited case as to whether they could demonstrate within the premises or not.

11. While the Constitution guarantees the right to demonstrate but it would be subject to the law of the land. The demonstration necessarily does not imply right to stop the working of the management. The management necessarily gets a civil right to ensure that working is not obstructed. A balance necessarily has to be struck in terms that work of the management is not to be disturbed. They should work in health atmosphere and workmen also can continue with their activities in a peaceful manner.

12. This Court in the case of The East India Hotels Ltd. v. Oberoi Intercontinental Hotel Employees Union (Regd.) and Ors. 1994 IV AD (Delhi) 392 was concerned with somewhat a similar situation. The court directed the employees not to demonstrate or indulge in any such acts within a distance of 300 meters. The court held:-

"I am afraid this argument has no force. As already stated above the office bearers have no right to induce or interfere in the peaceful atmosphere of the hotel nor can they obstruct the visitors, guests or officials and employees of the hotel....."

13. In another decision rendered by this court in the case of Patel Oil Mills v. Relaxo Rubber & Allied Industries Employees Union and Ors. . The court again recognised that demonstrations, gherao etc. are recognised form of presenting the grievances of thereupon the court restrained the union and its members and workers from interfering in the ingress and egress of the employees, willing workmen, visitors, officers to the premises of the plaintiff and also from causing any blockade but permitted the demonstrations to be held on the front side footpath where the main entrance of the factory was located but outside the boundary wall.

14. Identical is the position herein and therefore the contention that defendant No. 1 could well be allowed to carry on the business or peaceful dharna cannot be accepted.

15. During the course of submissions learned counsel for defendant No. 1 urged that it may be permitted to atleast sit in one corner of the front lawn of the plaintiff. Indeed when the matter was probed it transpired that there is not a very big front lawn in this regard. The premises of the plaintiff was stated to be opposite the Parliament House and keeping in view of this fact demonstrations across the road would also be not in the interest of proper administration. It is in this backdrop that the above said request of defendant No. 1 cannot be accepted. In this regard the nature of the work of the plaintiff which is as stated for humanitarian in nature cannot be ignored. Keeping view of the aforesaid it must be held that not only the plaintiff has a prima facie case the balance of convenience is also in favor of the plaintiff because it is carrying on a humanitarian work as blood bank referred to above is being managed run by the plaintiff.

16. For these reasons, during the pendency of the civil suit interim injunction is issued. Defendants are restrained from holding any demonstration, blockade, dharna or picketing or from blocking ingress and egress of the employees and doctors within the boundary wall of the premises and it should be, if at all, such an act has to be done 20 meters away from the premises of the plaintiff.

Suit 960/2001

17. Written statement should be filed within four weeks with advance copy to the plaintiff's counsel. Replication, if any, be filed within the next four weeks.

18. List it before the Joint Registrar on 22nd February, 2002.