Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Sanchar Nigam Executives ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1631 Del

     *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CS(OS) No. 688/2004 and CS(OS) No. 814/2004

%                                 Date of decision: 24th April, 2009

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.                              .......      Plaintiff
                           Through:     Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. A.S.
                                        Singh, Advocates for the plaintiff.

                                     Versus

SANCHAR NIGAM EXECUTIVES
ASSOCIATION (INDIA) LTD. & ANR.                       ....... Defendants
                           Through:     None.


CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may               No
      be allowed to see the judgment?

2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?              No

3.    Whether the judgment should be reported             No
      in the Digest?


RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. Both suits are between the same parties and are taken

together for disposal. CS(OS) No. 688/2004 was instituted first, for

the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and the

other office bearers, members of the defendant No. 1 from resorting

to strike, rallies, dharnas, demonstrations, gherao or any other

unwarranted activities in and around the office premises of the

plaintiff at Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and at

Kidwai Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi or at any other office premises

of the plaintiff in Delhi or at the residential premises of any of the

officers of the plaintiff. Relief was also sought of restraining the

defendants from interfering in the ingress and egress of the officers,

staff or public in and from the aforesaid offices of the plaintiff and/or

residences of the officers of the plaintiff. The cause of action for the

CS(OS) Nos. 688/2004 & 814/2004 Page 1 of 8 institution of this suit was stated to be the letter dated 16th June,

2004 of the defendants threatening dharna/demonstration.

2. Vide interim order dated 28th June, 2004 in this suit the

defendants were restrained from holding rallies, dharnas,

demonstrations, gheraos within the radius of 100 meters of the

premises known as Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi

and Kidwai Bhawan, Janpath New Delhi and also from holding any

demonstration at the residential premises of the officers of the

plaintiff. The defendants were also restrained from interfering with

the ingress and egress of the employees of the plaintiff willing to

work or employees of other organizations occupying the aforesaid

buildings.

3. On the next date i.e. 26th July, 2004, the counsel for the

defendants stated before this Court that the defendants will not act

pursuant to the impugned notice dated 16th June, 2004. On 29th July,

2004, the Court was informed that all issues involved in the suit had

been settled between the plaintiff and the defendants in terms of the

Minutes of Meeting dated 30th June, 2004. Accordingly, this Court

feeling that no cause made for continuance of the interim order

dated 28th June, 2004 vacated the same. The counsel for the plaintiff,

however, stated that the suit needs to continue because of the

further threats by the defendants. The pleadings were thereafter

completed in this suit.

4. CS(OS) No. 814/2004 was filed by the same plaintiff against

the same defendants, as in CS(OS) No. 688/2004. The plaint and the

reliefs claimed in this subsequent suit are also identical as in the

earlier suit. It was stated in the plaint that after the vacation of the

interim order in CS(OS) No. 688/2004, the defendants had

threatened dharnas/demonstrations vide letter dated 15th July, 2004

necessitating the institution of the subsequent suit. The application

CS(OS) Nos. 688/2004 & 814/2004 Page 2 of 8 of the plaintiff for interim relief in the subsequent suit was disposed

of by a detail order dated 14th October, 2004 and in terms whereof

the defendants were restrained from resorting to the threatened

action impugned in the subsequent suit except in accordance with

the said order. It was ordered that the demonstration and dharna

shall be entirely peaceful and shall not in any manner bar or impede

the ingress and egress of the officers, staff and visitors of Kidwai

Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi and such action of the defendants

should not disturb functioning of the plaintiff. It was further clarified

that the lunch hour demonstration will not be held inside the Kidwai

Bhawan building but only outside the building but in the compound

comprising of 2000 sq. yds. The order was made with respect to

Kidwai Bhawan only on the statement of the counsel for the

defendants that they did not intend to hold demonstration at any

other location. An appeal being FAO(OS) No. 252/2004 was

preferred by the plaintiff against the said order dated 14th October,

2004 but the same was dismissed with the modification that in the

event of any demonstration proposed to be held it may be so held

within 100 meters away from the building.

5. The pleadings in the subsequent suit were also completed.

6. It may be mentioned that even though in CS(OS) No. 688/2004,

the interim order dated 28th June, 2004 had been vacated on 29th

July, 2004 but in order dated 19th January, 2006, therein, without

reference to the order dated 29th July, 2004, the order dated 28th

June, 2004 was confirmed during the pendency of the suit.

7. Identical issues were framed in both the suits on 19th January,

2006 as under:-

"(1) Whether the present suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action? OPD (2) Whether the activities of the defendants were

CS(OS) Nos. 688/2004 & 814/2004 Page 3 of 8 carried out in a peaceful manner without hampering ingress/egress and without breach of peace? OPD (3) Whether the defendants were justified in issuing the letter dated 16.6.2004 as the management of the plaintiff company failed to redress the issues and grievances raised by the defendants? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants, as prayed? OPP (5) Whether the program/action carried out by the defendants in terms of the letter dated 16th June, 2004 is illegal? OPP (6) Whether the complaint submitted by the Association Editor of the Statesman or the complaint submitted by M/s. Jhonson Control India relate to any activities of the defendants who are group B Officers in the plaintiff Company? OPP (7) Whether the defendants have a right in law to hold dharnas/demonstration etc. as pleaded in the plaint without keeping any distance from the premises of the plaintiff? OPP (8) Relief."

8. Though there is no order consolidating the two suits or the

trial therein but the two suits were listed on the same date from time

to time. The plaintiff has examined the same witnesses in both the

suits who have filed their affidavits by way of examination in chief.

There affidavits are also identical.

9. The defendants failed to appear before the Joint Registrar for

cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff and have been

proceeded against ex parte.

10. Though the cause of action for the two suits were the notices

dated 16th June, 2004 and 15th July, 2004 respectively and which

cause of action has disappeared during the pendency of the suit itself

but the suits were continued by the plaintiffs, it appears on the

CS(OS) Nos. 688/2004 & 814/2004 Page 4 of 8 larger issue as to the entitlement at all of the defendants to strike

work and engage themselves in dharnas/demonstrations. A reading

of the order dated 14th October, 2004 (supra) in CS(OS) No.

814/2004 discloses that it was the contention of the counsel for the

plaintiff that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in T.K.

Rangarajan vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu 2003 (6) SCALE 84 and in

Railways Board, New Delhi vs. Niranjan Singh AIR 1969 SC 966,

the employees have no fundamental or statutory right to resort to

strike. Per contra, the counsel for the defendants had relied upon

Punjab National Bank Ltd. vs. All India Punjab National Bank

Employees' Federation AIR 1960 SC 28 to contend that the right to

strike was a part of the freedom of speech and expression and a

fundamental right under the Constitution of India.

11. However, during final hearing, the counsel for the plaintiff has

not addressed on this aspect. The defendants having been proceeded

ex parte and the cause of action for the suits being as aforesaid and

which appears to be not surviving now, I do not deem it expedient to

adjudicate the said controversy in the present proceedings.

However, so as not to prejudice the plaintiff and or to debar them

from raising the said plea at any point of time, liberty is granted to

them to the said effect.

12. Otherwise, I find that the courts including this Court have from

time to time in suits of such nature, while not prohibiting the

employees/their associations form holding strikes, dharnas,

demonstrations, etc, have been making orders to ensure that such

actions of the employees/their associations do not bring the

functioning and services of the corporate/institutions to a standstill

and do not force persons willing to work to join in such agitations. In

my opinion, the present suits can also be disposed of on the same

lines.

CS(OS) Nos. 688/2004 & 814/2004 Page 5 of 8

13. Though issues were framed as aforesaid, but the defendants

having been proceeded against ex parte, need is not felt to deal

issuewise. Suffice it is to state the affidavits of evidence of the

witnesses of the plaintiff and which remain uncontroverted disclose

that there was a cause of action for institution of both the suits and

the plaintiff had also received complaints from the other occupants

of the buildings in which the offices of the plaintiff are located. The

defendants cannot be permitted to hold dharnas/demonstrations

wheresoever they may desire. If the defendants are given such

liberty, the same is definitely likely to interfere with the functioning

business activities of the plaintiff and is likely to inconvenience the

visitors and other persons to the offices of the plaintiff.

14. The plaintiff had sought the relief with respect to three

categories of premises i.e. Statesman House, Kidwai Bhawan and the

residences of the officers of the plaintiff. The counsel for the

defendants while addressing on the application for interim relief in

CS(OS) No. 814/2004 had confined the right to hold demonstrations

dharnas, etc at Kidwai Bhawan only. Even otherwise considering the

location of Statesman House at Barakhamba Road, abutting outer

circle of the Connaught Place and the dense commercial activities in

the buildings surrounding the same and the volume of traffic on the

roads/lanes around the said building and further considering the fact

that the plaintiff is merely one of the occupants of the said building,

and any activities of the defendants are likely to disturb/effect the

functioning of the other occupants of the building, as well as the free

flow of traffic around the said building, the plaintiff is found entitled

to absolute injunction qua the said Statesman House. Similarly, the

defendants have no right to hold any demonstrations at the

residences of the officers of the plaintiff. The officers of the plaintiff

act in discharging of their own functions/duties and have no personal

CS(OS) Nos. 688/2004 & 814/2004 Page 6 of 8 interest in the disputes/issues, if any, with the defendants and no

disturbances at the residences of the said officials which also house

the other family members of the said officials can be permitted.

15. As far as Kidwai Bhawan located on Janpath is concerned, the

defendants have no right to hold demonstrations/dharnas on the

public roads/pavements. Vide interim order they were permitted to

demonstrate within open compound of the said building, at a

distance of 100 meters from the building. In my opinion, the same

order which appears to have served the purpose during pendency of

the suit can be made final order in the suit as well.

16. The suit of the plaintiff is, therefore, decreed in the following

terms:-

(1) A decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour of

the plaintiff and against the defendants and the office

bearers and members of the defendant No. 1,

restraining/prohibiting them from holding any

demonstration, dharna, rally, gherao or any other similar

activity in and around the office premises of the plaintiff

at Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi or in

and around the residential premises of the officers of the

plaintiff.

(2) A decree for permanent injunction is also passed in

favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the

office bearers and members of the defendant No. 1,

restraining/prohibiting them from holding any

demonstration, dharna, rally, gherao within a distance of

100 meters from the building known as Kidwai Bhawan.

It is, however, clarified that the said distance is to be

measured not from the outer boundary wall of the

CS(OS) Nos. 688/2004 & 814/2004 Page 7 of 8 property known as Kidwai Bhawan but from the building

within the compound of the property.

(3) The defendants are also restrained from interfering in

any manner whatsoever with the entry and exit of any

person to and fro the said building and/or from the

functioning of the affairs/business of the plaintiff in any

manner whatsoever and/or from stopping any

employee/worker/officer of the plaintiff, if so willing,

from discharging his functions/duties in terms of his

employment.

17. However, in the facts of the case, the parties are left to bear

their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn up.

                                           RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J
April 24, 2009
rb




CS(OS) Nos. 688/2004 & 814/2004                              Page   8 of 8