Delhi High Court
C.J. International Hotels Ltd. vs Hotel Mazdoor Union Through Its ... on 20 March, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order decided on: March 20, 2014
+ CS(OS) No.1029/2011
C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.D.S.Narula, Sr.Adv. with
Ms. Manmeet Arora, Adv.
versus
HOTEL MAZDOOR UNION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY& ORS
..... Defendants
Through Defendants already ex-parte.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The abovementioned suit has been filed by the plaintiff with prayer to
pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against
defendant No.1-Union, its office bearers, members, agents, representatives
and any person acting through or for the said Union and also defendants
No.2 to 5 thereby permanently restraining defendants No.1 to 5 and the said
persons from entering the premises of the plaintiff at 8, Windsor Place, New
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the said premises").
2. The plaintiff Company owns a Deluxe 5-Star Hotel at the said
premises in the name and style of "Le Meridian", New Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as "the said Hotel"). It provides residence to customers/tourists
from all parts of the world. Most of its clientele includes foreigners and
Non-Resident Indians (NRIs).
The defendant No.1 claims to be a Union of workmen/employees of
various hotels in Delhi and is supposed to be registered, recognized and
affiliated with A.I.T.U.C. However, the defendant-Union does not enjoy any
support or recognition from the workmen or employees of the plaintiff-
Company.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present suit are as under:-
(i) One Mr.Harkesh Chand, a utility worker employed in the said Hotel
was suspended on 10th June, 2010 due to his misconduct and
insubordination while on duty. Charge sheet was issued on 16th June,
2010 and on 4th August, 2011 he was discharged from service.
Mr.Harkesh Chand is said to have joined the defendant No.1/Union,
allegedly in order to pressurize the plaintiff-Company to withdraw the
enquiry against Mr.Harkesh Chand.
(ii) On 12th June, 2010, the plaintiff received a letter dated 9th June, 2010
wherein it was stated that a branch of defendant No.1/Union
consisting of majority of workmen of the plaintiff-Company was
formed and they sought to submit a charter of demands which were
for and on behalf of the workmen of the plaintiff-Company. In the
charter of demands, the defendant No.1/Union was seeking certain
concessions which according to the plaintiff are not sanctioned by
law.
(iii) The letter dated 9th June, 2010 also called upon the plaintiff-
Company's General Manager to discuss the charter of demands with
the defendant No.1/Union. However, the plaintiff-Company did not
respond to the letter dated 9th June, 2010 as they regarded the
demands to be unfounded and misconceived.
(iv) In August 2010, the defendant No.1/Union filed a statement of claim
in terms of the charter of demand contained in the letter dated 9 th June,
2010 before the Conciliation Officer. The plaintiff-Company duly
entered appearance. The copy of the proceedings before the
Conciliation Officer has been filed on record.
(v) The defendant No.1/Union vide its letter dated 20th January, 2011
addressed to the plaintiff-Company alleged that 42
employees/workmen of the plaintiff have become members of the
defendant No.1/Union. Of the 42 employees, 6 named in paragraph 4
of the plaint had denied their membership of defendant No.1 in
writing through a letter written to the plaintiff.
(vi) While proceedings were pending before the Conciliation Officer, the
defendant No.1/Union issued a letter dated 16th March, 2011 enlisting
the names of 9 employees of the plaintiff-Company including the
name of Mr.Harkesh Chand and asserted that these were protected
workmen and called upon the plaintiff to acknowledge the same. The
plaintiff-Company vide letter dated 28th March, 2011 rejected the
assertion of the defendant No.1/Union.
(vii) Thereafter, the defendant No.1/Union issued the impugned letter dated
22nd March, 2011 followed by letter dated 25th April, 2011 demanding
that space be provided in the said hotel premises to put up a notice
board to enable the defendant No.1/Union to put up its notices.
(viii) On 29thApril, 2011 the plaintiff received a letter dated 27th April, 2011
from the defendant No.1/Union to the effect that it would hoist a Flag
at the staff gate of the plaintiff-Company's premises and that the flag
hoisting will be attended by the office bearers of AITUC. However, it
is contended by the plaintiff that neither the defendant-Union nor the
AITUC can, in law, enter the plaintiff's premises without permission.
(ix) Apprehending that the intention of the defendant No.1/Union is that a
large number of persons unlawfully and illegally disrupt the
functioning of the plaintiff Company's business by trespassing into the
said hotel premises and create chaos causing embarrassment to the
management and the guests of the said Hotel, the plaintiff Company
filed the present suit for injunction.
4. Along with the suit, the plaintiff-Company filed an interim application
being I.A. No.6933/2011, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying
for ex-parte interim injunction. Vide order dated 30th April, 2011 which
stood corrected by order dated 9th May, 2011 the following ex-parte
injunction order was passed, which reads as under :
"17. In view of the above, it is directed as follows :
(i) The defendant No.1/its officer bearers, members, agents,
representatives, assigns and any other person acting through or for
them as also the defendant Nos.2 to 5 are hereby restrained from
entering the premises of the plaintiff at Le Meridian Hotel, 8,
Windsor Place, New Delhi.
(ii) The defendant No.1/its office bearers, members, agents,
representatives and any person acting through or for them and
defendant Nos.2 to 41 are hereby restrained from creating any
impediment in the way of functioning of the plaintiff, by resorting
to gherao of its directors and executives and other members of staff,
obstructing the ingress and egress to the hotel and office premises at
8, Windsor Place, New Delhi as well as adopting any other
measures, shouting of slogans, including the hoisting of flag,
erection of notice boards etc. at the hotel Le Meridian and office
premises.
(iii) The defendant No.1/its office bearers, members, agents,
representatives and any person acting through or for them and
defendant Nos.2 to 41 are hereby restrained from doing any flag
hoisting, dharna, gherao, holding demonstrations within a radius of
200 mtrs. from or around the hotel Le Meridian at 8, Windsor
Place, New Delhi.
(iv) A direction is issued to the SHO of the police station
Parliament Street to ensure compliance with the above directions.
The provisions of the proviso XXXIX Rule 3 CPC shall be
complied within three days from today.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court
Master to counsel for the parties and for service of the SHO."
The said order is continuing as of today.
5. The defendant No.1 filed the written statement and all the remaining
defendants (except 32 and 37 who were not served as per order dated 30th
September, 2011) adopted the written statement of defendant No.1. The
defence taken by the defendant in the written statement was that the suit
filed by the plaintiff is covered by the Trade Union Act and Industrial
Disputes Act and, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present
suit. It was also alleged in the written statement that no suit for permanent
injunction can be filed to restrict the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under
the Constitution of India.
It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the defence taken by the
defendant is untenable in law and is misconceived. After the filing of the
written statement, the defendants choose not to appear and were proceeded
ex-parte by order dated 21st February, 2012. The defendants moved an
application being I.A. No.8317/2012 under Order IX Rule 7 read with
Section 151 CPC for setting aside the said order dated 21st February, 2012.
The said application was allowed and the said ex-parte order was recalled.
The defendants also moved an application being I.A. No.8016/2012 under
Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC for rejection of plaint. The said
application was dismissed vide order dated 1st February, 2013.
As the defendants were not appearing, the injunction order dated 9th
May, 2011 was confirmed till the disposal of the suit.
6. Thereafter, the issues were framed and the plaintiff led his evidence
by way of an affidavit. The plaintiff-Company's witness Mr.Yash Kant
tendered his examination-in-chief. There was no appearance on behalf of the
defendants since 1st October, 2012. Accordingly by order dated 23rd July,
2013 the defendants were proceeded ex-parte.
7. Since the plaintiff's witness was not cross-examined by the
defendants, the contents of the affidavit filed by the plaintiff, therefore, stand
unrebutted and the documents filed and relied upon in the affidavit stand
admitted. The defendants have not led evidence to prove their defence and to
rebut the contentions of the plaintiff. In view of the same, the defence and
the documents of the defendants stand not proved.
8. In the main prayer of the suit, the plaintiff sought for permanent
injunction against defendant No.1, its office bearers, members, agents,
representatives and any person acting through or for them, as also
defendants No.2 to 5 thereby permanently restraining defendants No.1 to 5
and the said persons from entering the premises of the plaintiff and from
creating any impediment in the way of functioning of the plaintiff-Company,
by resorting to gherao of its Directors and executives and other members of
staff, obstructing the ingress and egress to the said Hotel and office premises
at Windsor palace as well as adopting any other measures, shouting of
slogans, including the hoisting of flag, erection of notice boards etc. at the
said Hotel and office premises and also from hoisting, dharna, gherao,
holding demonstrations within a radius of 1 kilometer from or around the
said Hotel and office premises.
9. The submission of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.1/Union is not
recognized by the plaintiff. The employees of the plaintiff Company are not
even the members of the defendant No.1/Union. Therefore, the defendant
No.1/Union had no locus-standi to issue the letters as mentioned earlier and
its members cannot be permitted to disturb the functioning of the plaintiff's
business by trespassing into the said Hotel and causing nuisance which may
cause loss and injury to the business and reputation of the plaintiff.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has referred the following decisions:-
(i) M/s Asian Hotels Ltd. vs. Asian Hotels Employees Union & Ors., 82
(1999) DLT 91 wherein it was held that "....Running a Five-Star
Hotel requires a high degree of efficiency. In the hospitality industry,
it is only after a sustained effort that a hotel builds up its image.....
Any unsavory incident or obstruction in the egress and ingress or
demonstration which has the potential of becoming violent or a
nuisance could scare away the customer and mar the image of the
hotel."
(ii) In ITC Ltd. vs. Maurya Shereton Hotel Kamgar Congress & Ors.,
95(2002) DLT 133 while decreeing a suit for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from holding any demonstration or
indulging or causing any difficulty to the employees of the plaintiff
from discharging their duties and also ingress and egress of visitors,
guests, observed that "....Plaintiff is dealing with hyper-sensitive
guests of different nationalities and is prone to different jurisdictions
of the courts worldwide in case these guests choose to initiate legal
action against the plaintiff which can result in damage in millions of
dollars claimed by the guests of the hotel who are harmed due to ugly
and unlawful demonstration activity conducted by the defendants·
cannot be allowed to indulge in such activities under the garb or
colour of constitutional freedom granted under Article 19 of the
Constitution of India for forming associations, Unions and hold
Demonstration."
(iii) In Kwality Restaurant vs. Jagdish & Ors., 107 (2003) DLT 541, this
Court granted a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining the defendants from
holding any demonstration, dharna within the radius of 500 metres
from the boundary walls and entrances of the restaurant.
11. It is settled law that Trade Unions do have the right to peacefully
ventilate their grievances, however, they cannot disrupt the functioning of
the business or damage the property by resorting to demonstrations, gheraos
etc. Reliance is placed on the decisions given in the cases of Standing
Conference Of Public Enterprises vs. Delhi Office & Est. Employee Union
& Ors., 104 (2003) DLT 112, Escorts Heart Institute & Research vs. Delhi
Mazdoor Sanghatan Regd. & Ors., 132(2006) DLT 308 and Rail India
Technical and Economic Services Ltd. vs. Bhartiya General Mazdoor
Congress & Ors., 97 (2002) DLT 521.
12. By referring the above said judgments, the submission of the plaintiff
is that the defendant No.1/Union is not even a recognized Union and they
cannot under the garb of forcibly hoisting a flag and putting up a notice
board provoke and intimidate the workmen and cause interference in the
functioning of the said Hotel and in case, the defendant No.1/Union is not
restrained, the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss. Even otherwise, the
case of the plaintiff has not been rebutted by the defendants who have failed
to adduce any evidence in support of their case.
13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and since
the plaintiff's evidence has gone unrebutted and no one appears on behalf of
the defendants, no submissions were addressed and in view of the settled law
on the subject, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed to the following effect :
(a) Defendant No.1, their office bearers, members, agents,
representatives and any person acting through or for them, as also
defendants No.2 to 5 and defendants No.1 to 6 are restrained from
entering the premises of the plaintiff at 8, Windsor Place, New
Delhi.
(b) The defendant and its office bearers, members, agents and
representatives or any other person acting through them or for
them be restrained from doing any flag hoisting, dharna, gherao,
holding demonstrations within a radius of 500 meters from the
boundary walls and office premises situated at A-34, Windsor
Place, New Delhi.
14. Decree be prepared accordingly.
15. No costs.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
MARCH 20, 2014
