Delhi High Court
A.E.P.C. vs A.E.P.C. Employees' Union (Regd) on 25 September, 1987
Equivalent citations: (1989)ILLJ117DEL
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking to restrain the latter by themselves or through their members, employees and agents from :
(1) resorting to any strike, demonstration, dharna, gherao or assembly inside or outside or round about the offices of the plaintiff situated at premises Nos. 58 and 73, Nehru place, New Delhi and Aircargo Complex, Palam Airport, New Delhi, atleast within a radius of 500 meters of the aforesaid offices;
(2) causing any obstruction in any manner in the ingress and egress of the officials/employees of the plaintiff and those of the exporters, their agents and other persons to/from the aforesaid offices of the plaintiff.
On this application ad interim injunction was issued on 28th August, 1987, by B. N. Kirpal, J., as prayed for with the only exception that injunction in terms of clause (a) referred to above the radius directed was only 100 meters instead of the radius of 500 meters.
The aforesaid ad interim injunction was varied, vide order dated 15th September, 1987, by B. N. Kirpal, J., in the following words :
"Ad interim ex parte injunction was issued in order to enable the annual general meeting of the plaintiff, which was supposed to be held on 29th August, 1987, to be conducted without any interference. I am informed that this meeting has since been held. As counsel for the plaintiff wants time to file a rejoinder and as the annual general meeting has already taken place, the interim orders dated 28th August, 1987, are varied and the defendants are not restrained from having demonstrations or assembly at the gate at 58, Nehru place and 73, Nehru Place and at the gate of Aircargo Complex, Palam Airport, New Delhi, provided the said demonstrations or assembly are peaceful and the demonstrators do not obstruct or prevent any person from going in or coming out of the said premises and provided further that no abusive slogans are shouted. No hooligans from outside should be called by the defendants..."
2. The plaintiff is a company duly registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act and Shri I. J. S. Khorana is its Director-General and it is one of the export promotions councils sponsored by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, and the purpose of formation of the plaintiff company is to do all acts and deeds to promote the export of readymade garments and to do all other deeds and acts connected with the same. The plaintiff controls the export of readymade garments from India to various parts of the world and all functions of the Government have been allocated to the plaintiff and it is the plaintiff which grants quota, shipment endorsements and settles entitlement of a particular exporter for export of readymade garments and the extent of the export of the readymade garments is about Rs. 1,600 crores per annum and the plaintiff has various offices in Delhi, besides offices in the major cities of India like Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, Tripura and Jaipur, etc., but the registered office is situated at 58, Nehru Place, New Delhi, and there are about 400 employees of the plaintiff serving at different offices of the plaintiff in the country and a substantial number of them are serving at different offices at Delhi/New Delhi. It is further alleged that the plaintiff is substantially controlled by the Government.
3. Defendant No. 1 is the Union of employees of the plaintiff and has been recognised by the plaintiff management whereas defendants Nos. 2 to 6 are respectively its President, Vice President, General Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer. Defendants Nos. 7 to 18 are the members of the employees' union defendant No. 1.
4. Certain demands were raised by the members of defendant No. 1 and a memorandum of settlement between the plaintiff management and the employees was arrived at, vide settlement dated 26th March, 1985, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the demands embodied in the Charter of Demands dated 29th October, 1984, were fully satisfied as per the settlement and the same was so stated in the memorandum of settlement itself and the life of the settlement is three years with effect from 27th September, 1984.
5. The plaintiff received notice dated 13th June, 1987, from defendant No. 1 intimating that defendant No. 1 would resort to strike for their pending demands, even though there was no demand pending. In the reply as also in subsequent letters it was pointed out by the plaintiff to the defendants that the strike would be illegal and unfair and they were requested to restrain themselves from resorting to strike, etc.
6. On 28th August, 1987, during the noon hours a gate meeting was convened and held by defendant No. 1 within the office premises of Aircargo Complex, Palam Airport, without the permission of the plaintiff, which was attended by most of the defendants and other members who were unruly and violent and abusive slogans were raised abusing the management, the Director-General, the Director Personnel, Director, Northern Region, and other officers of the plaintiff and it was openly threatened that the strike would take effect on the expiry of the notice period with a further threat that they would not allow anybody, may it be officers/directors, employees of the plaintiff of any exporters or other persons, to enter any of the offices of the plaintiff and if any such person tried to enter the office premises of the plaintiff, he would be physically obstructed even with the use of physical force and otherwise.
7. Again, on 25th August, 1987, during lunch break a similar gate meeting was organized and held by the defendants at the registered office of the plaintiff in Sahyog Building No. 58, Nehru Place, New Delhi, without the permission of the plaintiff and it was a violent and unruly meeting wherein abusive language was used against the abovementioned high officers of the plaintiff and the employees were incited, during speeches, to resort to physical violence to achieve their illegal demands. It is further alleged that in that meeting it was further threatened by defendant No. 1 and its officers that during the period of strike they would have a large number of outsiders so as to cause all possible violent demonstrations, strike and obstruction to prevent the entry and exit of employees/officers of the plaintiff as also the exporters and others connected and concerned with the business of the plaintiff.
8. It is also alleged that a large number of employees and officers are not ready and willing to join the strike and intend to discharge their duties and want to work in normal circumstances and further that a large number of exporters have to visit the offices of the plaintiff every day either for endorsement or for shipment which would entitle them to export their consignments and to do all other acts and deeds for the discharge of their export obligations.
9. Under the circumstances aforesaid the plaintiff feels convinced that the defendants would carry out their aforesaid nefarious designs by resorting to strike which would be violent and unruly and would cause disturbance and destruction to the plaintiff's property and it would be a danger to the life and property of the officers of the plaintiff.
10. It is also pointed out that export is made on the basis of irrevocable letter of credit and every exporter has target dates for export. Otherwise the letter of credit will lapse resulting not only in the breach of contract on the part of the exporters but it would also give a set back to the receipt of foreign exchange in the contract, and making proper export, which is otherwise necessary to be carried in terms of bilateral agreements arrived at between the Government of India and the Governments of foreign countries, would be hampered.
11. This application has been moved along with the suit of the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff prays for the grant of permanent injunction against the defendants in the same terms in which temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit is prayed for.
12. This application has been resisted by the defendants.
13. The perusal of the settlement dated 26th March, 1985, which had taken place between the parties, shows that there are certain demands which were left undecided therein and those demands are demands Nos. 6, 15 and 16 and these demands pertain respectively to recruitment/promotion/transfer, medical reimbursement and house building advance. Regarding medical reimbursement and house building advance, it is stated in the settlement that the management shall formulate separate rules in respect of the same. Regarding demand No. 6 for recruitment/promotion/transfer rules, it is stated in the settlement that the same would be decided separately. So, it cannot be said that the settlement effected between the parties had settled all the demands of the defendants. Furthermore, new demands on the part of the defendants can also arise and the settlement cannot bind them for all times to come.
14. From the facts already narrated above, the plaintiff does appear to have a prima facie case in his favor that the defendants would resort to strike and demonstrations, etc., inside or outside or round about the offices of the plaintiff referred to above and would also make inflammatory speeches and use abusive slogans against the very senior officers of the plaintiff management and even the use of violence on the part of the defendants against the management of the plaintiff cannot be ruled out as a result of a violent and unruly meeting where tempers run high and this inference can be conveniently drawn from the first two meetings organized by defendant No. 1 and adverted to above wherein the participants were unruly and violent and abusive slogans abusing the management and its senior officers were raised and even threats were openly held out against the entry of any of the officers/directors and employees of the plaintiff and the exporters or other persons who tried to enter any of the aforesaid offices of the plaintiff. The apprehension of physical violence on the part of the defendants and their other associates towards the senior officers of the plaintiff management also cannot be ruled out as without foundation.
15. Balance of convenience also appears in favor of the plaintiff whose export business of readymade garments is to the tune of about Rs. 1,600 crores per annum and the export is made on the basis of irrevocable letter of credit and every exporter has target dates for export; otherwise a letter of credit would lapse resulting not only in the breach of the contract on the part of the exporters but would also affect adversely the bilateral agreement arrived at between the Government of India and the Governments of foreign countries and that may end in irreparable loss to plaintiff and that would be all the more so if the directors, officers and employees of the plaintiff management and the exporters are not allowed entry in the aforesaid offices of the plaintiff by the defendants. If they hold the demonstrations and raise abusive slogans and prevent them from entering the aforesaid premises of the plaintiff, the entire work of the plaintiff is likely to come to a stop. In Engineering Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Engineering Projects (P.) Employees' Union, (1986) Lab I.C. 1266, temporary injunction was issued restraining the employees' union and its members from holding any meeting, demonstration or shouting slogans in the office premises of the plaintiff company or in corridors or passages, staircases of the plaintiff company and within a radius of 50 metres from the office of the plaintiff company on the said place and they were also restrained from preventing the officers/employees, visitors and clients of the plaintiff company from entering or going out of the premises of the plaintiff company. It was held as follows (at page 1268) :
"There is no doubt that, according to Article 19 of the Constitution, every citizen of this country has freedom of speech, freedom to assembly peaceably and freedom to form association or union. But, as was held by the Supreme Court in Railway Board, New Delhi v. Niranjan Singh (1996-II-LLJ-743), there is a limit to the said fundamental rights in as much as there is no right to hold meetings and shout slogans at the premises legally occupied by another."
In that case, the General Manager of Northern Railway had prohibited the railway employees from holding meetings within the railway premises including open grounds forming part of the premises. The Supreme Court held that the General Manager had every right to prohibit holding of meetings in the railway premises, and that, therefore, violation of the orders of the General Manager entailed punishment. The following observations appearing in this authority are reproduced below (1969-II-LLJ-743 at 747) :
"... Hence, unless it is shown that either under law or because of some usage the railway servants have a right to hold their meetings in railway premises, we see no basis for objecting to the direction given by the General Manager. There is no fundamental right for anyone to hole meetings in Government premises. If it is otherwise, there is bound to be chaos in our offices. The fact that those who work in a public office can go there does not confer on them the right of holding a meeting at that office even if it be the most convenient place to do so.
It is true the freedoms 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 peaceably and freedom to form associations 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...."
16. This authority, thus, gives a decision in respect of places where the aforesaid fundamental rights of an employee cannot be exercised and it lays down that the fundamental right cannot be exercised on the premises belonging to or occupied by another. This principle of law is in no way whittled down by the Supreme Court in Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1962-I-LLJ-294), wherein it was held that the Government servants could resort to any form of strike in connection with any matter pertaining to their conditions of service. This authority related to the existence of the right of the employee to any form of strike but did not relate to the place where that right can be exercised.
17. In view of the above discussion, the assembly and demonstrations by the defendants at the gate meeting at the aforesaid offices of the plaintiff cannot be allowed. Under these circumstances, the temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit is granted in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants as prayed for in this application except that the radius of 500 metres is altered to only 50 metres with the further direction that the said demonstration or assembly shall be peaceful and the demonstrators do not resort to abusive slogans. Observations in this order are only prima facie.