Delhi District Court
M/S Rich Look Garments (P) Ltd vs M/S Readymade Garments Expoter ... on 7 April, 2011
Suit No. 251/2010
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA
CIVIL JUDGE (WEST): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 251/2010
M/S Rich Look Garments (P) Ltd.
.......Plaintiff
Versus
M/S Readymade Garments Expoter Employees Union & Ors.
......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.It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing garments and Sh. Sunil Goyal is the Chief Financial Officer who is also present in the court today. It is further submitted by counsel for plaintiff that defendant no. 1 is a registered Union represented through the President Mohd. Ishaa and defendant no. 2 is the General Secretary of the said Union. It is the case of the plaintiff that owing to certain grievances, the employees of the plaintiff company have filed an industrial dispute in the office of Labour Commissioner, Karampura which is still pending adjudication. That the defendant no. 1, Union is illegally exerting pressure and extending threats to the plaintiff company in order to fulfill their alleged illegal demands on the pretext that they are not being provided appropriate facilities. It is specifically submitted that on 14.12.2010 without any prior notice, the Union members illegally gheraoed the Senior Management Officials and started using M/S RICH LOOK GARMENTS VS. READYMADE GARMENTS 1/5 Suit No. 251/2010 abusive language and slogans and even threatened to cause damage to the property of the plaintiff company and also to block ingress and egress of the other employees of the company, its customers, visitors etc. In an earlier incident, they had also beaten up one of the employees of the plaintiff company namely Sh. Subhash mercilessly who had lodged a complaint with the PS Mianwali. It is argued by the counsel for plaintiff that they have no objection if the defendants stage gherao, dharna etc but they should be allowed to do so beyond the radius of 500 mtrs. from the factory and should further be restrained from burning the effigies of the directors and Senior management of the plaintiff company till the pendency of the case.
2. Defendant no. 1/ Union through its President Mohd. Ishaa and the defendant no. 2/ General Secretary have submitted that they have certain grievances against the plaintiff company and an industrial dispute pertaining to same is still pending adjudication and it is within their rights to stage gherao, dharna etc. It is further submitted that no site plan has been annexed with the plaint to show that what is exactly the reasonable distance beyond which the defendant employees can stage Gherao. Further, a bald allegation is made that the defendants are threatening the Senior Officials of Management at their residences, however, no specific address of any official has been mentioned in the plaint and the same is therefore, without any cause of action.
3. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parteis and gone through the plaint and documents annexed thereto apart from other material available on record.
4. 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 M/S RICH LOOK GARMENTS VS. READYMADE GARMENTS 2/5 Suit No. 251/2010 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 non-interference 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 & Ors" decided in 2006 (3) Civil Court Cases 634 (S. C.).
5. Coming to the facts in hand, this is the dispute between the management and its employees. 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, there is already a pending litigation between the parties before the Labour M/S RICH LOOK GARMENTS VS. READYMADE GARMENTS 3/5 Suit No. 251/2010 Commissioner. 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 100-200 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".
6. 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 subject-matter 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 100 meters of the business premises of the M/S RICH LOOK GARMENTS VS. READYMADE GARMENTS 4/5 Suit No. 251/2010 plaintiff at J-27, Udhyog Nagar, New Delhi-110041 and the residence of the officials of the management of the plaintiff.
(ii) The defendants while holding any dharna or demonstration if they may even beyond the radius of 100 meters as aforesaid, shall give a prior notice to the plaintiff management.
(iii) The plaintiff management shall pay the salaries/ allowances to the employees regularly as per rules for the work done by the employees, however, subject to the out come of the decision of the Labour Commissioner before whom this issue is pending.
7. Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC is disposed off accordingly. Copy of this order be given dasti to both the respective counsels.
8. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Pronounced in the open court today on 07.04.2011 (SHEFALI SHARMA) CIVIL JUDGE (WEST) THC, DELHI/ 07.04.2011 M/S RICH LOOK GARMENTS VS. READYMADE GARMENTS 5/5