Karnataka High Court
M/S Tokai Rika Minda India Pvt.Ltd vs Tokai Rika Minda Employees Union on 28 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.27375 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. TOKAI RIKA MINDA INDIA PVT LTD.
PLOT NO.365, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA
SOMPURA FIRST STAGE,
DABASPETE, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 111.
REPRESENTED BY
MR. VIVEK SHIT R. NAIDU
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
HR AND GA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN N.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
TOKAI RIKA MINDA EMPLOYEES UNION
[A UNIT OF BENGALURU NORTH INDUSTRIAL
WORKERS UNION (C.I.T.U)]
NO.7, 4TH CROSS, OPPOSITE
ST. LAWRENCE ENGLISH PRIMARY SCHOOL,
KALYANA NAGARA, T. DASARAHALLI,
BENGLAURU-560 052.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
UNIT PRESIDENT
MR. NATARAJ. N.S.
....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANANTHARAM T.S., ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.142 OF 2018 FROM THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., NELAMANGALA; CALL
FOR RECORDS IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.18 OF 2018
FROM THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NELAMANGALA AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30TH MAY,
2019 WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-H; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No.142 of 2018, challenging the order dated 04th June, 2018 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Nelamangala (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'), which came to be modified by order dated 30th May, 2019 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.18 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), allowing the appeal in part.
2. Brief facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the plaintiff/petitioner herein has filed suit, seeking relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant-Union, its office bearers or its members from conducting any form of strikes, 3 agitations, demonstrations; etc by assembling within the radius of 250 meters from the plaintiff's company. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff's company, its staff, workmen, etc from working in its establishment through illegal strikes, agitations, demonstrations by assembling within a radius of 250 meters from the plaintiffs company. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court, by order dated 04th June, 2018 and defendants are restrained from obstructing in any way the plaintiff's company, its staff, workmen etc from entering into and leaving the suit schedule property by resorting to any form of illegal strikes, agitations, demonstrations by assembling within 80 meters from the outside of the main gate of the suit schedule premises pending disposal of the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant/respondent herein has filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.18 of 2018 on the file of the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, by order dated 30th May, 2019, modified the order passed by the trial Court and observed that 4 the defendants shall conduct peaceful agitation within 80 meters from the establishment and permitted to hold their agitation peacefully near or by the external side of the compound wall. The said order is called in question by the plaintiff before this Court in the present writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri. Mallikarjun N.K., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Anantharam T.S., learned counsel appearing for respondent.
4. Sri. Mallikarjun N.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, defendants are illegally interfering with the working of the plaintiff's establishment. Therefore, the plaintiff has been forced to file the suit before the trial Court. He further contended that the trial Court, after considering the material on record, has rightly passed the order restraining defendants from interfering with the working condition of the plaintiff. However, the First Appellate Court, has modified the order stating that the defendants are permitted to carry out the peaceful agitation within 80 meters. He submits that, the said 5 order of First Appellate Court requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri. Anantharam T.S., learned counsel appearing for respondent invited the attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court on 23rd July, 2019 and submitted that the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper, which does not call for any interference in this writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the order passed by this Court with regard to the issue involved in the suit as referred to above. This Court in order to ameliorate relationship between the employees and the employer has observed that the workmen shall follow assurance as given to the Court as well as the plaintiff-Management is permitted to install C.C. TVs wherever desirable to minimize friction between the employer and employees. However, I have also carefully considered the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, wherein, the First Appellate Court, taking into consideration the finding recorded 6 by the trial Court at Paragraph 27 of the judgment, has modified the order passed by the trial Court and observed that the defendants shall agitate their legal demands within 80 meters of the premises and also observed that the defendant has every right to form union and carryout the trade union activities, however, it should not cause damages or violence in the premises and the same cannot be found fault with. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of for the reasons stated above.
Sd/-
JUDGE ARK