Gossini Fashion Ltd. vs Delhi Leather Karigar Sangathan
2010 Latest Caselaw 5205 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                   Judgment Pronounced on: 16.11.2010

+           CS(OS) No. 51/2008

GOSSINI FASHION LTD.                         .....Plaintiff

                          - versus -

DELHI LEATHER KARIGAR SANGATHAN              .....Defendant

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Mr.Jasmeet Singh, Adv. with Ms. Aahuti
                   Sharma
For the Defendant: Ex-parte

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

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

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

V.K. JAIN, J (Oral)

1. This is a suit for permanent injunction. The

plaintiff is a company and the plaint has been signed and

verified and the suit instituted through its Attorney

Mr.Prakash Mohan Sahai. It has been alleged in the plaint

that the defendant, which is a union of the employees of the

plaintiff company issued a notice dated 3 rd January, 2008

threatening to hold agitation on 4th January, 2008 from 10

AM to 6 PM in front of the business premises at B-1/E-3,

Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi, until its

demand for reinstatement of certain employees and

compensation to them was met. It has been further alleged

that the defendant Union carried out demonstrations on 6 th

January, 2008 and 9th January, 2008 and during

demonstration it created disturbances preventing

officials/officers of the plaintiff company in their ingress to

and egress from the work place. Some of the employees of

the plaintiff were also manhandled during demonstrations.

It has been alleged in the plaint that these demonstrations

and agitations had a major impact on the normal

functioning of the plaintiff company, since the customers

and visitors have to regularly visit the factory premises of

the plaintiff at B-1/E-3, Mohan Co-operative Industrial

Estate, New Delhi. The plaintiff, therefore, has sought

injunction restraining the defendant, its agents,

representatives etc. from holding demonstrations and

dharnas, shouting slogans and holding meetings outside the

premises of the plaintiff at B-1/E-3, Mohan Co-operative

Industrial Estate, New Delhi. The plaintiff has also sought

injunction restraining them from obstructing or preventing

ingress to or egress from the premises of the plaintiff

company. They have also sought injunction against

interference in the normal functioning of the plaintiff

company from the above-referred premises.

2. The defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 6th

March, 2009.

3. The plaintiff by way of ex-parte evidence has filed

affidavit of Mr.Manish Pant who is to duly constituted

attorney of the plaintiff company vide authorization letter

Ex. PW1/1 signed by Mr.Sudhir Sood in his favour.

Mr.Sudhir Sood is a Director of the plaintiff company and

his signatures on the authorization letter have been

identified by the deponent. The resolution in favour of

Mr.P.N.Sahai who had instituted the suit and signed and

verified the plaint is Ex. PW1/2. The Memorandum and

Articles of Association of the plaintiff company is Ex.

PW1/3.

4. In his affidavit, Mr.Manish Pant has stated that

the plaintiff/company had engaged a contractor namely,

M/s. Elite Industiral Security Service which had provided its

employees, namely, Rajesh Kumar, Binesh Babu, Paigambar

Ahmad and Jawahar Singh at the factory premises of the

plaintiff company. Since these persons were not working

properly they were removed by the contractor. Thereupon

the defendant started threatening the plaintiff company to

take back those persons. Since they were not the employees

of the plaintiff company there could be no question of the

plaintiff taking them back in employment. A notice Ex.

PW1/4 was then sent by the defendant to the plaintiff

company, seeking reinstatement of these four persons and

payment of compensation to them. He further stated that

demonstrations were held on 6th and 9th January, 2008 and

during demonstrations the defendant created disturbances

preventing officers/officials of the plaintiff in their ingress to

and egress form the work place at B-1/E-3, Mohan Co-

operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi. Some of the

employees of the plaintiff/company were also manhandled

during the demonstrations. He also stated that the

defendant is threatening to carry out demonstrations

regularly till its demand for reinstatement and possession is

made and they have also manhandled the employees of the

plaintiff/company from their ingress and egress from the

workplace. According to him, further demonstrations were

also held in October, 2008 and July, 2009.

5. The plaintiff has also produced the photographs

taken during the demonstrations held on 9 th January, 2008

and the same are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/5. A

report was also lodged by the Manager of the

plaintiff/company with P.S. Badarpur in this regard on 9 th

January, 2008 and the same is Ex.PW1/6. Photographs

were also taken during demonstrations held on 10 th

January, 2008 and the same are collectively exhibited as

Ex.PW1/7. The complaint made to the police on that date is

Ex. PW1/8. It is also stated that on 18th January, 2008 the

striking workers physically threatened to beat some

employees of the plaintiff/company. The photographs taken

during the violent demonstration held on 18 th January,

2008 are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/9.

6. Ex.PW1/2 is the copy of the resolution passed and

the Board of Directors of the plaintiff/company on 5 th

November, 2007 authorizing Mr.Prakash Mohan Sahai, a

Director of the plaintiff company to file suit and sign and

complete all the formalities on behalf of the plaintiff

company. Ex. PW1/4 is the letter dated 3rd January, 2008

signed by the defendant to the plaintiff/company, asking it

to take back four persons, namely, Rajesh Kumar, Binesh

Babu, Paigambar Ahmad and Jawahar Singh within 48

hours. There is a note at the bottom of this letter whereby

it was informed that the employees would hold dharnas and

demonstrations from 10 AM to 6 PM from 4th January, 2008

onwards at the gate of the factory. These photographs Ex.

PW1/5 which were taken on 9th January, 2008 clearly show

the employees holding demonstration at the gate of the

factory of the said company. The letter dated 9 th January,

2008 addressed to SHO, P.S. Badarpur contains a report to

the police with respect to the demonstrations held by the

workers at the factory premises and seeking police

deployment near the factory premises. The photographs Ex.

PW1/7 taken on 10th January, 2008 also show the

gathering of the workers at the gate of the factory. The

letter sent to SHO, P.S. Badarpur on 11th January, 2008

also complains of the employees loitering near the factory

premises carrying lathis/dandas etc. with them and seeking

police deployment. The photographs Ex. PW1/9 which were

taken on 18th January, 2008 also show the damage to the

property of the plaintiff/company. A report was also lodged

with the SHO, P.S. Badarpur in this regard on 18 th January,

2008.

7. Shri P.N.Sahai, at the relevant time was a Director

of the plaintiff/company was duly authorized by Board of

Director of the plaintiff/company to institute the suit and to

sign the pleadings etc. Therefore, the plaint has been signed

and verified and the suit instituted by a competent person.

8. The notice sent by the defendant to the

plaintiff/company clearly indicates the resolve of the

defendant to hold dharnas and demonstration at the gate of

the factory unless and until its demand for taking back the

four persons named in the notice is made. The affidavit of

Shri Manish Pant coupled with the photographs filed by the

plaintiff/company and the reports made to the police from

time to time show that not only demonstrations/dharnas

were held, the employees of the plaintiff/company were also

manhandled during the course of demonstrations and they

were also obstructed while entering the factory and/or

coming out of it.

9. It is well known that tempers run high when

demonstrations of such nature are organized by a union of

workers. It becomes really difficult to control the mob and

there is a serious apprehension of breach of peace and law

and order in case such demonstrations/dharnas are allowed

to be held in the vicinity of the factory where the workers

are employed. The property of the employer is usually made

a target during such demonstrations. The visitors and the

employees who do not support such demonstrations are

also targeted and manhandled, in order to prevent them

from entering to premises of its employer. The obvious

purpose is to put pressure on to employer, by resort to

unlawful and violent means, to give in to demand of the

Union. There is a strong likelihood of the property being

damaged, the visitors and those employees who do not side

with the Union being manhandled and obstructed during

their ingress to and agrees from the premises of the

employer, if such unlawful activities are allowed to be

undertaken. Infact the business of the employer and

functioning of its office and factory may come to a standstill,

unless appropriate preventive directions are issued to a

Union taking recourse to such methods. The personal safety

of the visitors, managers and other workers may also be in

jeopardy unless unlawful activities of this nature are

appropriately curbed.

10. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs,

the suit is decreed to the extent that the defendant is

restrained from holding any demonstration/dharna within a

radius of 50 meters from the factory premises of the plaintiff

at B-1/E-3, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New

Delhi. The defendant is also restrained from obstructing

the managers, employees and visitors from entering the

factory premises or coming out of it. The defendant will also

not interfere with the normal functioning of the

plaintiff/company in any unlawful manner. Decree sheet be

prepared accordingly.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE

NOVEMBER 16, 2010 vg