Bureau Of Indian Standards vs The President, Bids Employees ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 1960 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The plaintiff is the Bureau of Indian Standards established w.e.f. 1.4.1987 by the Central Government in pursuance to a notification dated 31.3.1987. The plaintiff is a statutory body set up under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 and is responsible for laying down policy guidelines for standardization.

2. The present suit for permanent injunction has been necessitated on account of the allegation that some of the employees/officers of the plaintiff are not permitting the smooth functioning of the plaintiff by holding demonstrations at the gate and by preventing/disrupting the ingress and egress. Defendant No. 1 is the President of the Union while defendant No. 2 is the General Secretary.

3. Defendant No. 2 is stated to have served a notice dated 23.7.2007 upon the plaintiff alleging that in the meeting of Selection Committee for promotion of Grade 'B', 'C' and 'D' employees, a panel of promotion up to 31.3.2008 was approved by the Committee.

4. The grievance of the defendants is that promotions to the post of Section Officer, Assistant and UDC were not being made as per seniority list and posts were lying vacant resulting in hardship to the employees. The plaintiff alleges that when the letter of the defendants was under consideration, another letter dated 02.8.2007 was served by defendant No. 2 on the plaintiff to the effect that in view of the grievance not being redressed, gate meetings would be held on 02.8.2007 at 1.00 P.M. to bring the facts to the notice of all employees of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff claims that whistle and bigul were blown to call all the employees and nuisance was created by raising slogans in favor of the Union. During the meeting imputations are also stated to have been made against the officers of the plaintiff. A further letter dated 3.8.2007 was served on the plaintiff to the effect that regularly such gate meetings would be held.

6. The defendants have filed their written statement and learned Counsel for the defendants, on instructions from defendants No. 1 and 2, states that they are not going to interfere with the ingress and egress of the staff and willing workers of the plaintiff nor will they disrupt the functioning of the plaintiff. This is stated, of course, without prejudice to what has been stated in the written statement.

7. The aforesaid suit being of a limited nature of relief, it is agreed that a decree be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants, their members, associates and office bearers from preventing ingress and egress of the staff and willing workers, disrupting the functioning of the plaintiff in any manner or using abusive slogans. It is stated by learned Counsel for the defendants that the demonstrations would be held only when the need so arises in a peaceful manner and that too not during the working hours of the plaintiff.

8. Learned Counsel for the parties also state that every endeavor will be made to sort out the disputes so that a situation should not even arise for holding such demonstrations.

9. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

10. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

IA No. 9264/2007 (Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC)

No further directions are called for in this application.

Application stands disposed of.