M/S Kuoni Travels India Ltd vs Janvahini Krantikari Karamchari ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 6808 Del

       *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of Decision: 29.11.2012

+      CS(OS) 375/2010

       M/S KUONI TRAVELS INDIA LTD                                   ..... Plaintiff
                    Through: Mr Nikhil A. Menon, Adv.

                      versus

       JANVAHINI KRANTIKARI KARAMCHARI UNION & ANR
                                              ..... Defendants
                    Through: None.


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

                               JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a suit for declaration and injunction. Defendant No. 2 Vikramjit

Dandona was appointed by the plaintiff-company as an Executive (Finance) at

Delhi and later promoted as Senior Executive (Finance) with effect from

04.11.2009. He, however, stopped reporting for duty from that date. He owed a

sum of Rs 2,63,907/- to the plaintiff-company which he admitted vide his later

dated 04.12.2009. He resigned from the service of the company on 5.12.2009,

citing personal reasons for doing so. He issued three cheques to the plaintiff-

company in discharge of his liability. Those cheques, when presented to the bank,

were dishonoured. A notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was

then issued to him by the plaintiff-company, requiring him to make payment of the

dishonoured cheques. It is alleged in the plaint that as a counter blast, a notice

dated 26.02.2010 was received by the plaintiff from defendant No. 1 which is a

Union of Employees, threatening therein to hold day long dharna outside the office

of the plaintiff-company, burn effigies and take out procession, coupled with the

sloganeering in case payment was not made to defendant No.2. The plaintiff-

company apprehends that proposed dharna/demonstration is likely to disrupt its

functioning, besides causing inconvenience to its employees, business and

customers, thereby adversely affecting its goodwill and market reputation. The

plaintiff also apprehends damages to its property if the proposed

demonstration/dharna is held. The plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the notice

dated 26.02.2010 issued to it by defendant No. 2, threatening to hold dharna, etc. is

illegal. It is also seeking injunction, restraining the defendants from holding any

dharna, procession, etc and preventing ingress to and egress from its office

premises.

2. The defendants were proceeded ex parte on 26.04.2011. The plaintiff has

filed affidavit of Mr Percy Harver, by way of ex parte evidence. In his affidavit by

way of evidence, Mr Percy Harver has supported, on oath, the case set out in the

plaint and has also proved the documents relied upon by the plaintiff.

3. Ex.P-7 is the letter written by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff-company,

admitting that he owes a sum of Rs 2,63,907/- to it and undertaking to pay the said

amount w7ithin 30 days. Ex.P-8 is the letter, whereby defendant No. 2 resigned

from the service of plaintiff-company, citing personal reasons. Ex.P-12 is the

notice sent by the plaintiff to defendant No. 2 under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, requiring him to pay the amount of Rs 1,50,000/- being the

amount of three dishonoured cheques issued by him.

4. Ex.P-13 is the notice dated 26.02.2010 sent by defendant No. 1 to the

plaintiff-company through its General Secretary Mr Ram Dularey. Vide this letter,

defendant No.1 informed the plaintiff-company that it proposed to hold one day

demonstration in which an effigy would be garlanded with the shoes and the said

effigy would be garlanded by shoes. It was further threatened that thereafter the

workers would walk for about a kilometer. It was also stated in the letter that if the

salary and provident fund of defendant No.2 were paid, the proposed demonstration

would not be held by defendant No. 1.

5. The case of the plaintiff-company is that defendant No.2 has resigned from

service of his own and in fact, he owed money to it. This is also the case of the

plaintiff-company that three chques of Rs 50,000/- each issued to it by defendant

No. 2 were dishonoured and a notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act was issued, calling him upon to pay the amount of those dishonoured cheuqes.

According to the plaintiff-company, it owes nothing to defendant No. 2 and in fact

is entitled to recover certain amount from him. Be that as it may, even if it is

assumed for the sake of argument that the provident fund or other dues of

defendant No. 2 have not been paid by the plaintiff-company that by itself gives no

justification to defendant No.1 to hold a demonstration, carry an effigy and conduct

in the manner threatened vide letter dated 26.02.2010 (EX.P-13).

6. 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. In fact 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.

7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the defendants are hereby restrained

from holding any proposed dharna/demonstration, procession etc. within a radius

of 100 yards from the office premises of the plaintiff-company. They are further

restrained from preventing ingress to or egress from the above referred premises in

any manner.

Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

V.K. JAIN, J

NOVEMBER 29, 2012 bg