Delhi District Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs M/S. Nurses Welfare Association on 25 April, 2009
Page numbers
IN THE COURT OF SH. SIDHARTH SHARMA: ACSJ, DELHI.
SUIT NO:402/09/99.
In the matter of:
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Through its Commissioner,
Town Hall, Delhi.
..........Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s. Nurses Welfare Association,
Through its President,
6239, Ajmeri Gate,
Delhi06.
2. Hospital Employees Union,
Through its President,
Aggarwal Bhawan,
G.T. Road, Tis Hazari,
Delhi54.
...........Defendants
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
:JUDGMENT:
1. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the defendant praying for restraining the defendants, their agents, office bearers, officers etc from performing their agitational activities / demonstrations activities within the premises/working places of the plaintiff and to perform demonstration or use filthy language making unlawful assembly in front of working Page numbers places of the plaintiff within the radius of area of 500 sq. yards. Plaintiff further prayed for awarding cost of the suit in their favour.
2. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint are that the MCD / plaintiff is a statutory body and Dr. Ashok Virmani, Medical Superintendent is the competent authority to file the present suit on behalf of plaintiff. It is further stated that Hindu Rao Hospital is controlled and administered by the plaintiff which is providing health services to the public at large. It is further stated that defendant no.1 & 2 are the so called Trade Unions. It is stated that defendant issued notices for making demonstration and call of strike and the staff of nurses from 18.5.99 to 21.5.99 and hunger strike on 22.5.99 in front of Town Hall, Delhi vide letter No.12/HRH/99 dated 10.5.99 issued by defendant no.1 and the letter dated 1.1.99 issued by defendant no.2. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendants had started running their illegal agitational and instigating activities against the management, doctors and other administrative staff and the employees of the management who wanted to perform the duty. It is further stated that in view of the notice received by the plaintiff, there is an apprehension of demonstrational and agitational activities which are illegal and unlawful as no Trade Union has been recognised by the Page numbers management. There is also apprehension of the quarrel between the patients and their attendants and the employees in question. It is further stated that the agitational activities are going on since 29.4.99 within the premises of the hospital and the surrounding area and the defendants have no authority to do so and they are entitled to do so only by following the terms & conditions of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act, 1947 r/w Code of Discipline which is extended and applicable to the plaintiff vide resolution No.698 dated 7.11.1963.
3. The defendant no.1 did not contest the case and also did not file the written statement and was proceeded ex parte on 30.8.2000.
4. in the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no.2, preliminary objections were taken that the suit was barred under Sec.18 of the Trade Union Act and that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action as the apprehension at the time of filing of suit were long back and since over and therefore, the suit has not become infructuous. It is further stated that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Sec.41 of the Specific Relief Act as an alternative remedy of approaching the police is available to the plaintiff. The defendant no.2 also denied that Dr. Ashok Virmani was authorized to file suit on behalf of the plaintiff.
Page numbers
5. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, the contents of the written statement were denied and contents of the plaint were reiterated to be correct. It was reiterated that the defendants were bound by the Code of Discipline formulated by the Union of India to regulate trade union activities in the Government undertakings and statutory autonomous bodies.
6. On the application under Order XXXIX R 1 & 2 of the CPC, injunction was granted restraining the defendant no.1 & 2 from carrying out any agitational activities within the 500 sq. yards from the boundary of the hospital.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 30.4.2002: i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
ii. Whether the suit is barred u/s. 18 of the Trade Union Act 1926? OPD2.
iii.Whether there is no cause of action against defendant no.2? OPD2. iv. Whether the suit is barred u/s. 41 of the Specific Relief act? OPD2. v. Relief.
Page numbers
8. The plaintiff examined PW 1 Ms. Nandini Bhandari, Administrative Officer, Hindu Rao Hospital who was cross examined by counsel for defendant no.2. The defendants did not lead any evidence to prove their case.
9. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff as well as defendant no.2 and my issuewise observations are as under:
Before deciding the Issue no. 1, I propose to decide Issues No. 2, 3 & 4.
ISSUE NO. 2
10.The burden to prove that the suit is barred under Sec.18 of the Trade Union Act was upon the defendant no.2 who failed to lead any evidence. In any case, the plaintiff has proved that the plaintiff in compliance of the provisions of Code of Discipline adopted by plaintiff vide Resolution No.688 dated 7.11.1963 which stated that Trade Union activities are not applicable in any Government undertaking inclusive of plaintiff as per the Trade Union Act. It is further proved by the plaintiff that no Trade Union till date had been recognised and hence, there is no Trade Union to comply with the provisions of the Code of Page numbers Discipline. In view of the same, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.3
11. The burden to prove that there existed no cause of action against defendant no.2 was upon it but failed to discharge its burden by leading no evidence. Thus, this issue is decided against defendant no.2 and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.4
12. The defendant raised the preliminary objection under Sec.41 of the Specific Relief Act stating that the plaintiff had alternative remedy of approaching the police and therefore, the suit is barred. However, in my opinion, the plaintiff is entitled to file the present suit praying for injunction as well as he can also approach the police in case the defendant take law in their hands. The two remedies are separate remedies and therefore, in my opinion, the suit of the plaintiff is not barred under Sec. 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act. This issue is decided against the defendant no.2 and in favour of the plaintiff.
Page numbers ISSUE NO.1
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff examined PW 1 Ms. Nandini Bhandari, Administrative Officer, Hindu Rao Hospital. She exhibited copy of the plaint and identified signatures of Dr. Ashok Virmani. She further stated that defendant no.1 & 2 started agitational activities within the premises of the hospital and thereby disturbed day to day activities of the hospital and also issued notices to the hospital. PW 1 further stated that the alleged unions of the defendants have not been recognised by the MCD as they failed to comply with the Code of Discipline which was adopted by the plaintiff committee of MCD vide their resolution No. 688 dated 7.11.1963 and she further stated that the agitational activities of the defendant are illegal and unauthorised.
14. Defendant no.1 chose not to contest the case and did not cross examine PW 1. Counsel for defendant no.2 cross examined this witness who denied the suggestion that plaintiff has filed a wrong case and is not entitled for any relief. In the cross examination, she stated that the Trade Unions are illegal and no provisions for these unions are made by the plaintiff to reach any of the employee of the MCD.
Page numbers
15. In Railway Board New Delhi Vs. Niranjan Singh 1969 ILI J 743, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that.......
"It is true that the freedom guaranteed under our constitution are very valuable freedoms and this Court would resist abridging the ambit of those freedoms except to the extent permitted by the Constitution. The fact that the citizens of this country have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble peacably and freedom to form association or unions does not mean that they can exercise those freedoms in whatever place they please. The exercise of those freedoms will come to an end as soon as the right of someone else to hold his property intervenes. Such a limitation is inherent in the exercise of those rights. The validity of that limitation is not to be judged by the tests prescribed by sub Articles (2) and (3) of Article 19. In other words, the contents of the freedoms guaranteed under clause (a), (b) and (e), the only freedom with which we are concerned in this appeal, I do not include the right to exercise them in the properties belonging to others."
16. In M/s Patel Oil Mills Vs. Relaxo Rubber and Allied Industries Employees Union and Others, 76 (1998) DLT 595, it was held that.....
"Demonstration, Gheraos and such other activities are the means & tools through which the workers and the workmen ventilate their Page numbers grievances against the management. Such activities are recognised as legal trade union activities which is considered to be a peacful mechanism to display group feelings towards a cause and for redressal of the grievances. Such legitimate trade union activities when and if carried in a peaceful and legal manner are not to be shut out as in that event the same might cause permanent damage to the cause of industrial peace. Such trade union activities are also recognised by the laws of the country. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that no one could be allowed to exercise his right so as to cause harm and prejudice the exercise of right of another. No one could be allowed to physically interfere with the trade & business of the plaintiff. Therefore, in such matters, a balancing scale has to be applied so that the important freedom enjoyed by the trade union activities is restricted only to the extent needed to preserve the proper and efficient functioning of the business of the plaintiff. The equation must be properly balanced so that the rights of the defendants to enjoy their freedom and to exercise their legal rights is not rendered ineffective and illusory and at the same time the business of the plaintiff does not suffer.
How much distance should be there is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. For maintaining a measured and rectified distance from the premises of the plaintiff could be ordered in order to Page numbers prevent any act of violence or threat of bodily injury and for causing easy ingress & egress of a willing worker."
17. It is clear from the above authorities that right to hold demonstration is not an absolute right. Law recognises the existence of trade union as well as the scope and ambit of legitimate activities. Depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, such a conduct or act will be protected under section 18 of the Trade Union Act. However, for seeking this protective umbrella, the inducement and interference must be by lawful means.
18.In view of the discussion made above and in view of the law laid down in Railway Board New Delhi's case (Supra) and M/s Patel Oil Mill's Case (Supra) I am of the considered opinion that plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction as prayed for.
RELIEF
19. In view of my findings on the issues above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. The defendants, their agents, assoicates, office bearers, officials and administrators etc. are restrained from performing their agitational activities / demonstrational activities Page numbers within the premises/working places of the plaintiff and to perform demonstration or use filthy language making unlawful assembly in front of working places of the plaintiff within the radius of 500 sq. yards. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
th
ON: 25 April, 2009.
(SIDHARTH SHARMA)
ACSJ/DELHI.