National Insurance Company Ltd. vs All India General Insurance Sc/St ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3444 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                      CS(OS) No. 2215/2003

                                           Date of Decision: July 23, 2010


       NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.                        .....Plaintiff

                                Through:       Mr. Rajinder Dhawan and
                                               Ms.Shaffali Dhawan,
                                               Advocates.
                       versus

       ALL INDIA GENERAL INSURANCE SC/ST EMPLOYEES
       WELFARE PARISHAD                  .....Defendant

                                Through:       None.

       %
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH

     (1)      Whether reporters of local paper may be
              allowed to see the judgment?
     (2)      To be referred to the reporter or not?               Yes
     (3)      Whether the judgment should be reported
              in the Digest ?                                      Yes

                           JUDGMENT

ARUNA SURESH, J.

1. Plaintiff company has filed the present suit for

permanent injunction seeking restraint order against the defendant

for restraining it from holding demonstrations/gherao in the premises

of the plaintiff company within a radius of 100 meters of the

building, from obstructing ingress/aggress of men and material to its

office and from damaging the property of the plaintiff company by

resorting to violence for fulfillment of their demands.

2. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that it is a

Government company duly incorporated under the Companies Act

having its registered office in Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught

Place, New Delhi. It is engaged in the business of under writing

general insurance. Mr. R.K.Kaul, Assistant General Manager and In-

Charge of DRO-1 and its principal officer is duly constituted

attorney of the company. He is empowered to sign verify the plaint

and file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff company.

3. It is averred that defendant Parishad claims itself to be

the society registered under the Societies Registration Act, having its

registered office in Delhi and that some of the SC employees of the

plaintiff company are its members. It is further averred that officials

of the defendant Parishad had a meeting with officials of the plaintiff

company on 23.12.03 at 4.45 pm in DRO-1, which was attended by

Mr. R.K.Kaul, Mr. R.P Agarwala manager (personnel), Mrs. R

Bowgal, AO & ALO, on behalf of the plaintiff company. During the

course of the meeting, defendant Parishad stated that portrait of Dr.

B.R Ambedkar had been removed from the Board Room of DRO-1,

whereas no such portrait was ever displayed in the Board Room.

4. Some of the other demands raised by defendant related

to transfer of the officials which could not be accepted as the same

were against the public policy of the plaintiff company. Hence,

defendant Parishad held out a threat that they would resort to

agitational programme w.e.f 1st January, 2004 and would hold

dharna and resort to violence.

5. It is further averred that defendant has no right to hold

any demonstration in the premises of the plaintiff company and the

same would cause irreparable loss to the functioning and business of

plaintiff, as there is only one entrance on the ground floor to tower II,

level IV only one entrance to the plaintiffs company DRO-1 office.

Also that defendant if aggrieved can resort to constitutional methods

for resolving their demands. Hence, this suit.

6. As per the certified copy of the resolution passed in the

meeting of the Board of Directors of plaintiff's company held on

16th May, 1989 (Ex. PW-1/3), power of attorney has been executed

by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director in favour of Mr. R.

Bowgal to institute the suit, sign the plaint etc.

7. Defendant was duly served by way of publication in

'Statesman' but, he did not care to appear and contest the suit.

Hence, it was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 19th August, 2008.

8. Plaintiff has filed the affidavit of Mr.R.Bowgal,

Ex.PW-1/A in evidence, wherein he has affirmed the averments

contained in the plaint. He has proved in evidence copy of the

resolution dated 18th May, 1989 Ex.PW-1/3 passed in the meeting of

the Board of Directors of the company, whereby he was authorized

to sign and verify the plaint and file the present suit on behalf of the

company. From his statement, it is established that defendant

Parishad held out a threat that they would resort to agitational

programme w.e.f. 1st January, 2005 by holidng dharna and resorting

to violence because the company did not accept their demands and

also disputed the existence of portrait of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar in DRO-

1, in case their demands were not met. It is also proved that portrait

of Dr.Ambedkar was never seen by him in DRO-1 since his posting

i.e.1993. As per his affidavit, plaintiff did not accept other demands

being against the policy of the company. Statement of Mr.Bowgal

by way of evidence has gone unrebutted on record. I find no reason

to disbelieve the same.

9. Plaintiffs have the fundamental right to carry on their

business activity without obstruction and hindrance by violent

demonstrations. At the same time, defendant cannot be denied the

freedom to ventilate its grievances. A balance has to be struck in the

exercise of legitimate trade union activity and preventing any

obstruction in the right to carry on business. Defendant ought not to

be prevented from a peaceful mechanism to display group feelings

towards a cause and for redressal of its grievances. Towards this end,

it has a right to peacefully demonstrate and to have its presence felt.

Such a presence may even act as a catalyst and is conducive in

bringing the parties to the negotiating table, leading to a settlement

of disputes.

10. Since there is a threat on behalf of the Parishad for

holding an agitational demonstration by indulging into violence etc.,

it cannot be said that defendant Parishad wanted to adopt a peaceful

and constitutional mechanism to display the displeasure of group

feelings towards a lawful cause and for redressal of their grievances.

In case the defendant Parishad succeeds in its unlawful design

plaintiff company would suffer irrepairable loss and injury to its

reputation, business and goodwill. Defendant's illegal action would

also cause great inconvenience to its employees, workers, customers,

visitors etc. Under these circumstances, balance of convenience

heavily lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11. Hence, I conclude that plaintiff has succeeded in

proving its case. Consequently, I hereby pass a decree for permanent

injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant

Parishad, its office bearers and members restraining them from

holding demonstrations/gherao and/or going on dharna in the office

building of the plaintiff company situated at 4th Floor, Tower-II,

Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi or any of its

divisional offices/branches as per Schedule 'A' annexed to the plaint

within a radius of 100 metres of the buildings in which the said

offices of the plaintiff company are located. Defendant is further

restrained from obstructing ingress/egress of men and material to the

plaintiff company's office and from damaging the property of the

plaintiff company and/or resorting to violence in any manner. There

are no orders as to costs. Decree be prepared accordingly. Copy of

Schedule 'A' be annexed to the Decree Sheet. File be consigned to

the record room.

ARUNA SURESH (JUDGE) JULY 23, 2010 sb