Delhi District Court
M/S Fine Interior vs All India General Mazdoor on 24 February, 2011
Suit No. 36/2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA
CIVIL JUDGE (WEST): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 36/2011
M/S Fine Interior
.......Plaintiff
Versus
All India General Mazdoor
Trade Union
......Defendant
Order:
Vide this order, I shall dispose off an application under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff against defendant. The brief facts for
the effectual disposal of the instant application are as follows:
1.This is a dispute between the management of the plaintiff firm and its employees. It is the case of the plaintiff that prior to 10.01.2011, the business of furniture and fixture items and interior decorations was being run from the place bearing no. 1/5, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi which had been shifted to Art Center Complex, Udyog Vihar, PhaseIV, Gurgaon since the owner of the said premises had immediately asked the plaintiff to vacate the premises by 07.01.2011 for his personal requirements. Since the plaintiff had no alternative but to shift the business, the plaintiff held a meeting on 05.01.2011 with its employees and explained them the abovesaid position. As per the stand of the plaintiff, it was decided in the meeting that all the employees shall accompany the plaintiff at new place of business situated at Gurgaon and the plaintiff shall take care of all the difficulties of its employees in this regard. It was further agreed that if any employee is unwilling or unable to resume his duties on any ground, M/S Fine Interior Vs. All India General Mazdoor Trade Union 1/7 Suit No. 36/2011 he shall be paid his full and final amount for the services rendered by him to the plaintiff firm. However, the defendant union started creating problems for the plaintiff and the employees did not join their duties at the new office. Vide letter dated 12.01.2011, a written request was sent by the plaintiff to the 21 employees who had not resume their duties but in vain. Instead the employees had moved the Labour Commission for redressal of their demands. Since then the defendants have been threatening the plaintiff to organize agitation, stage demonstration, dharna, threatening to burn the effigies at the factory premises. It is the case of the plaintiff that the holding of such dharnas, staging of gheraos etc shall cause blockage to the ingress and egress of the plaintiff's officials, visitors, guests, customers etc and is an obstruction in carrying out the business. The aforesaid factual matrix constrained the plaintiff to file the present suit and forced the plaintiff to press the present application.
2. In order to substantiate his submissions, the plaintiff has filed various documents including the notices dated 10.01.2011 issued by the Labour Commission, the request letter issued by the plaintiff to the defendant employees to resume duties dated 12.01.2011, copy of a complaint at PS Kirti Nagar, copy of the letter dated 19.01.2011 for the purposed demonstration which was issued by the defendant union to the plaintiff.
3. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel Sh. U. M. Tripathi for the defendant has argued the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC orally. It is submitted that there is a deliberate and malafide attempt on behalf of the plaintiff in suddenly shifting the place of business which has rendered the employees of the defendant union helpless and without work. It is submitted that the plea taken by the plaintiff that on the M/S Fine Interior Vs. All India General Mazdoor Trade Union 2/7 Suit No. 36/2011 immediate request of the owner of the suit premises, he had to immediately shift the business is not sustainable in view of the fact that no document has been placed on record to show that the business premises was a rented property. It is further argued that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction since he has concealed material facts from the court. It is the case of the defendant that plaintiff has deliberately concealed the complete address of the new business premises at Gurgaon so as to prevent the employees of the defendant union from resuming their duties. For this, the defendant has placed on record various letters issued by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit which bear either the old address of the business premises i.e. 1/5, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi or bear the residential address but the new address of the business premises does not find mention, whereas in para 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff had categorically contended that he had shifted the business at a new premises at Gurgaon. It has been further argued that in view of these circumstances, the defendant employees were left with no remedy but to agitate for their rights by staging gheraos, demonstration etc. However, the employees never resorted to any unlawful means instead a legal notice of the demonstration was served upon the plaintiff and also the defendant had moved the labour commission for the redressal of their grievances, wherein the plaintiff never appeared despite service. It is further argued that the plaintiff has unlawfully retained the tools of 10 employees who were working in the plaintiff firm as carpenters. A list of these 10 persons has been placed on record. It is argued that the defendant be allowed to stage gherao, demonstration etc in a lawful manner and the application of the plaintiff be dismissed. Further the plaintiff has given cheques of salary to some employees which have been accepted by the M/S Fine Interior Vs. All India General Mazdoor Trade Union 3/7 Suit No. 36/2011 defendant without prejudice to their rights since according to them, it is a paltry amount.
4. I have heard Ld. Counsel for defendant Sh. U. M. Tripathi and gone through the plaint and documents annexed thereto apart from other material available on record.
5. It is a settled law that a party is entitled to an order of injunction only if he is able to satisfy the court that a strong prima facie case has been made out in his favour, the balance of convenience also lies in his favour and that refusal of injunction will cause an irreparable injury to him.
Prima facie case means that there is a likelihood of infraction of a legal right of the plaintiff by the defendant. It means that the case of the plaintiff raises a triable issue which needs investigation, consideration and adjudication.
The plaintiff is also to establish that balance of convenience lies in his favour. Balance of convenience connotes comparative mischief likely to be cause to either party in case of grant or refusal of relief of injunction.
The plaintiff is also to satisfy the court that noninterference by the court would result in an irreparable injury and that there is no other remedy available to him except one i.e. the grant of injunction in his favour. Irreparable injury means an injury which is a material one and one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. Further, it is a settled law that grant of temporary injunction is an equitable relief wherein the plaintiff has to satisfy the court that he has acted bonafidely. The aforesaid position of law has also been crystallized in the case titled as "Seema Arshad Zaheer & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai M/S Fine Interior Vs. All India General Mazdoor Trade Union 4/7 Suit No. 36/2011 & Ors" decided in 2006 (3) Civil Court Cases 634 (S. C.).
6. Coming to the facts in hand, it is a case where the right of the plaintiff firm to carry out its trade and business is pitted against the rights of the defendants in carrying out dharna, demonstration etc as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. Admittedly, in view of the letters issued by the defendants to cause demonstration, gheraos and burn effigies, the fear of the plaintiff is not unfounded. At the same time, the sudden shifting of the business by the plaintiff has left many employees without work and without pay. The right to freedom in staging demonstration, gheraos etc as guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution is not an absolute right when it violates the right of the employer to run his business smoothly. In such a scenario a balancing of rights has to be worked out by the court which can be done by restraining the workers, union to exercise agitational activities at a distance of more than 100200 meters from the business premises and residence of the employer. For this I place reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kwality Restaurant vs. Jagdish & Ors, 2004 LLR 28 (Delhi High Court) bearing similar facts wherein it was held that "staging demonstration or dharna, causing of obstruction in ingress or egress by the workers of the union be restrained within 200 meters of the premises and the residence of the managing partner". In the present case, there is no dispute that the employees have been rendered helpless in the sudden shifting of the factory premises.
7. The documents pertaining to the case pending disposal at the Labour Commission and the notices issued by the defendant union to the plaintiff fortify the same. Whether the M/S Fine Interior Vs. All India General Mazdoor Trade Union 5/7 Suit No. 36/2011 sudden shifting of the business withholding the salaries of the employees was legal can be determined only after both the parties have led their respective evidence. However, at this stage, it is pertinent to mention the case of Dhaneswar Vs. Ghanshyam, A 1940 A 185 and Bichharam Vs.Baldeo, A 1940 A 241, wherein it was held that in many cases it has been held that Order 39 is not exhaustive and apart from it the court has ample power to issue injunction ex debito justitiae for protection and security of the subjectmatter of suit or to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that rights of the defendant/ union to demonstrate/ stage gherao etc. as well as the right of the plaintiff employer to run his business smoothly, both are to be equally protected. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
(i) The defendants are restrained from staging of demonstration, dharna, causing of obstruction in the ingress or egress within 200 meters of the business premises of the plaintiff at 1/5, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and the residence of the officials of the management of the plaintiff or at the new business premises.
(ii) The defendants while holding any dharna or demonstration if they may even beyond the radius of 200 meters as aforesaid, shall not resort to any unlawful means whatsoever.
(iii) The plaintiff shall furnish on affidavit, the new address of the business premises in the court positively on or before the next date of hearing.
(iv) The plaintiff is directed to return the tools if any of the persons who were employed as carpenters before the next date of hearing as per list attached. M/S Fine Interior Vs. All India General Mazdoor Trade Union 6/7 Suit No. 36/2011
8. Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC is disposed off accordingly. Copy of this order be given dasti to both the respective counsels.
9. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Pronounced in the open court today on 24.02.2011 (SHEFALI SHARMA) CIVIL JUDGE (WEST) THC, DELHI/ 24.02.2011 M/S Fine Interior Vs. All India General Mazdoor Trade Union 7/7