Delhi District Court
The Leela Palace Kempinski vs General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union on 15 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. APOORV SARVARIA, CIVIL JUDGEI, NEW
DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
C.S. No: 238/13
Unique Case ID No.
The Leela Palace Kempinski
Diplomatic Enclave,
New Delhi.
... Plaintiff
Versus
General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union
Regd.no. 1664.
47 Amichand Khand, Girinagar, Kalkaji,
New Delhi110019.
Through : Sh. Chote Lal Tiwari, Secretary
...Defendant
Date of Institution: 13.09.2013
Date of Reserving Judgment: 22.02.2014
Date of Judgment: 15.03.2014
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERPETUAL INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. By filing the present suit, the plaintiff has sought decree of declaration that acts of the defendant union and its members of sending notice dated 09.09.2013 and holding demonstration and dharna on 14.09.2013 and a threat to hold dharna and demonstration and use mike at the Hotel premises at Chankyapuri Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi are illegal. Perpetual injunction is also sought CS No. 238/13 The Leela Palace Kempinski v. General Mazdoor Lal Union Page 1 of 4 restraining the defendants from staging dharna, demonstrations at Chankyapuri Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi and also from preventing or obstructing the officers of the plaintiff from entering or leaving the premises or restraining the stoppage of men and material, ingress and egress of goods to and from the premises and shouting slogans or use of loud speakers and using any abusive language towards the plaintiff.
2. The background facts are that the plaintiff is a reputed Five Star Hotel catering to Diplomats and VVIP community and has been chosen by Ministry of External Affairs as a hotel to house visiting foreign heads in the NCT of Delhi.
3. The defendant is stated to be a Trade Union and claims itself to be a registered Trade Union. It is stated that vide notice dated 09.09.2013 served on the SHO of Police Station Sarojini Nagar, the defendant has given threat of holding demonstration against the plaintiff with more than 50 persons on 14.09.2013. It is stated that the plaintiff is providing all benefits to which its employees are entitled and the plaintiff has been maintaining healthy relationship with its employees. A false industrial dispute has been raised by the defendant Union seeking various demands and during the pendency of such industrial dispute, defendant has given the impugned notice of demonstration which is illegal and it has threatened the plaintiff of using mike, loud speakers with more than 50 persons at the gates of the Hotel Leela Palace. There is all likelihood that such demonstrations would result into violence and breach of peace and damage to property of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
4. The present suit was received by way of assignment on 13.09.2013. Summons were issued to the defendants on 13.09.2013. Ex parte interim injunction was passed against the defendant and it was restrained from staging dharnas/demonstrations within the radius of 50 meters from the Leela Palace Kempinski. Summons were served on the defendant. On 19.10.2013, no CS No. 238/13 The Leela Palace Kempinski v. General Mazdoor Lal Union Page 2 of 4 appearance was made on behalf of defendant despite service and defendant was proceeded ex parte.
5. In support of its case, the plaintiff produced PW1 Sh. Rahul Dutta, who tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/4, after which the plaintiff's ex parte evidence was closed.
6. This court has heard Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff and perused the record.
7. PW1 Sh. Rahul Dutta has reiterated the contents of the plaint in the evidence affidavit. His testimony is supported by documents i.e. notice dated 09.07.2013 given by the defendants to the DCP, District South, proceedings before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, SouthWest Ex. PW1/2 (colly), site plan Ex. PW1/1A of the suit premises. The testimony of the plaintiff witness remains unrebutted and unchallenged.
8. The right of making protests and staging demonstration is a constitutional right of Trade Unions. Therefore, this court is not inclined to restrain the defendants from holding dharnas/demonstrations. But the said constitutional right is subject to reasonable restrictions. To maintain smooth working of the plaintiff, it is directed that the defendants shall not hold dharna and demonstration and use mike within the premises of the plaintiff at Chanakyapuri, Diplomatic Enclave and is also permanently restrained from preventing or obstructing the officers of the plaintiff from entering or leaving the premises or restraining the stoppage of men and material, ingress and egress of goods to and from the premises and shouting slogans or using of loud speakers or using any abusive language towards the plaintiff within the radius of 50 meters from Leela Palace Kempinski Hotel at Chankyapuri Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi. As far as legality of notice dated 09.09.2013 of the defendant, the court does not find it to be illegal as right to protest is a fundamental and constitutional right of a CS No. 238/13 The Leela Palace Kempinski v. General Mazdoor Lal Union Page 3 of 4 union flowing from Article 19 of the Constitution. Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant relief of declaration as prayed for. The suit is partially decreed in the above terms. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room. No order as to costs. The Judgment be uploaded to www.delhidistrictcourts.nic.in.
Announced in the Open Court (Apoorv Sarvaria) on 15th March, 2014 Civil JudgeI, New Delhi District/New Delhi CS No. 238/13 The Leela Palace Kempinski v. General Mazdoor Lal Union Page 4 of 4