Delhi District Court
Vakil Ahmed vs General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.) on 17 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, EAST KKD
COURTS DELHI
Suit No. 294/12
1. Vakil Ahmed
S/o. Late Sh. Asghar Ali
R/o. 281, Gagan Vihar,
Delhi (PLAINTIFF)
Versus
1. General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.)
through its Branch Secretary
Opp. Old Labour Office Giri Nagar,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
And having branch office at
4/7, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi - 110 002.
2. Sh. Baban Kumar Singh
Branch Secretary
General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.)
Opp. Old Labour Office Giri Nagar,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
3. SHO
PS Jagatpuri, Delhi (DEFENDANTS)
ORDER
1. This order shall dispose off the application of the applicant / plaintiff u/o. 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC : Suit No. 294/12 1/6
2. By present application plaintiff is seeking ad interim injunction thereby restraining the defendants from carrying out any type of Dharna, Demonstration, Slogans, shouting, gherao, causing hooliganism, burning effigy of plaintiff or making any type of hurdle to the plaintiff and his family members, relatives, staff, visitors etc. in their ingress and egress of any nature whatsoever, at his residence i.e., 281, GaganVihar, Kakari Mod, Delhi and to create any type of nuisance at the said place at least within the radious of 200 mts., till the final disposal of the accompanying suit. Facts necessary for disposal of the application are that plaintiff is dealing in the jewellery export business and he has nothing to do with the firm namely, M/s. S. N. Handicraft. The plaintiff has alleged that defendants are unnecessarily trying to trap the plaintiff to extort money by projecting Smt. Rehana, Anita, Heena, Sultana, Shahina, Reshma, Humera and Firoz Ahmed as the workers of the said M/s. S. N. Handicraft. It is alleged by the plaintiff that defendant no. 1 is claiming itself to be the Mazdoor Union attached with AITUC and the defendant no. 2 is claiming himself to be the Branch Secretary of the said Union. It is stated by the plaintiff that plaintiff has received a letter dated 07.08.2012, by Post, issued by the defendant no. 2 on behalf of the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 1 & 2 have thereby threatened the plaintiff that they will have hold the dharna and demonstration alongwith hundreds of their supporters in front of the gate of the plaintiff's residence at 281, GaganVihar, Kakari Mod, Delhi. It has been further threatened that the effigy of the plaintiff shall also be installed infront the gate of the residence and thereafter, the same shall be burnt. The plaintiff has further stated that defendants have alleged against him that he has Suit No. 294/12 2/6 failed to pay the arrears of dues, earned wages and reinstatement of the alleged workers. It is stated by the plaintiff that he has no concern with the M/s. S. N. Handicraft and then, there is no question arose to meet out the alleged demands of the above said workers. The plaintiff further stated that he has also informed the defendant no. 3 against the threatened action of the defendant no. 1 & 2 but Local Police has refused to entertain his complaint. It is stated by the plaintiffs that defendant no. 1 & 2 are bend upon to take law in their hands and to create problems not only for the plaintiff but also for the other occupants residing nearby the residence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further stated that defendant no. 1 & 2 has remedy under the Labour Law. It is further stated by the plaintiff that plaintiff is a serious patient of various diseases such as depression and he is also unable to walk. The threats by the defendants are harming the health of the plaintiff further. On these ground plaintiff seeks interim injunction.
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants. The defendants have put their appearance.
4. The defendant no. 2 has appeared on behalf of himself as well as on behalf of defendant no. 1. No WS or formal reply is given by the defendants no. 1 &
2. Sub Inspector Chandershekhar Pratap Singh, appearing on behalf of defendant no. 3 has also not filed any formal reply. The defendant no. 2 argued straightway on the application of the plaintiff under consideration. It is submitted by the defendant no. 2 that plaintiff has locked out the factory M/s. S. N. Handicrafts. It is further stated by the defendant no. 2 that a complaint has also been filed before the Labour Suit No. 294/12 3/6 and Conciliation Officer concern, which is pending for adjudication. It is further stated by the defendant no. 2 that workers have right to demonstrate against the malpractice by the employers, under the Democratic setup. The defendant no. 1 & 2 has prayed for dismissal of the application. On the other hand, SubInspector Chandershekhar Pratap Singh has appeared on behalf of defendant no. 3 and has submitted that if defendant no. 1 & 2 are permitted to demonstrate, it will create nuisance in the area and there are also chances for traffic halt and he also prayed for dismissal of application.
5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff as well as defendant no. 2 in person. I also perused the record. The notice dated 07.08.2012 sent by the defendant no. 2 being the secretary of defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff find mentioned that the worker namely, Smt. Rehana, Anita, Heena, Sultana, Shahina, Reshma, Humera and Firoz Ahmed were working with the company M/s. S. N. Handicraft, Asia Trading company, 1432, Gali Gondaniwali, Kala Mahal, Daryaganj, Delhi - 110 002, since years. So from the perusal of this document, it reveals that the above said workers were working at the factory situates at Darya Ganj and had not worked at the residence of the plaintiff situates at 281, GaganVihar, Kakari Mod, Delhi , Delhi. The law is very much settled with respect to demonstration by the workers. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi "Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences V/s. Vidya Sagar Hospital Employees Union, 124 (2005) DLT 640" has observed that "there is no right of the unions/ employees to hold demonstrations at he residence of the employer. This is specifically prohibited by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and Suit No. 294/12 4/6 amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the unions. Thus, holding of any kind of demonstration even physical demonstration is per se prohibited at the residence of the employer."
6. In view of the facts brought on record it is clear that above named workers had not worked at the residence of the plaintiff. The law settled in case "Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences V/s. Vidya Sagar Hospital Employees Union, (Supra)", the defendant cannot demonstrate at the residence of the plaintiff. So the plaintiff is entitled for ad interim injunction. The defendant no. 1 & 2 are restrained from carrying out any type of Dharna, Demonstration, Slogans, shouting, gherao, causing hooliganism, burning effigy of plaintiff or making any type of hurdle to the plaintiff and his family members, relatives, staff, visitors etc. in their ingress and egress of any nature whatsoever, at his residence i.e., 281, GaganVihar, Kakari Mod, Delhi and to create any type of nuisance on 18.08.2012. This order is made till the final disposal of the suit.
7. Nothing is tantamount of expression of opinion on the merits of the case as parties have yet to led evidence to prove their revival contentions.
Announced in Open Court (JAGDISH KUMAR)
Dated 17.08.2012 JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East)
KKDCOURTS/DELHI
Suit No. 294/12 5/6
Suit No. : 294/12
17.08.2012
Present: Counsel for plaintiff.
Defendant no. 2 in person and on behalf of defendant no. 1.
Sub - Inspector Chandershekhar Pratap Singh, from PS Jagat Puri. WS/ reply not filed by the defendants. Counsel for plaintiff prayed for hearing the application u/o. 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. Defendant no. 2 stated that he is ready to argue the application u/o. 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC straightway. Arguments heard on behalf of the parties on interim application. Vide separate order application u/o. 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is allowed and defendant no. 1 & 2 are restrained from carrying out any type of Dharna, Demonstration, Slogans, shouting, gherao, causing hooliganism, burning effigy of plaintiff or making any type of hurdle to the plaintiff and his family members, relatives, staff, visitors etc. in their ingress and egress of any nature whatsoever, at his residence i.e., 281, GaganVihar, Kakari Mod, Delhi and to create any type of nuisance on 18.08.2012. This order is made till the final disposal of the suit.
Be put up for 21.08.2012.
Copy of order be given dasti to both the parties, as per rules.
(JAGDISH KUMAR) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East) KKDCOURTS/17.08.2012 Suit No. 294/12 6/6