M/S Kuoni Travels India Ltd vs Janvahini Krantikari Karamchari Union ... on 29 November, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court

M/S Kuoni Travels India Ltd vs Janvahini Krantikari Karamchari Union ... on 29 November, 2012

1. This is a suit for declaration and injunction. Defendant No. 2 Vikramjit Dandona was appointed by the plaintiff-company as an Executive (Finance) at Delhi and later promoted as Senior Executive (Finance) with effect from 04.11.2009. He, however, stopped reporting for duty from that date. He owed a sum of Rs 2,63,907/- to the plaintiff-company which he admitted vide his later dated 04.12.2009. He resigned from the service of the company on 5.12.2009, citing personal reasons for doing so. He issued three cheques to the plaintiff- company in discharge of his liability. Those cheques, when presented to the bank, were dishonoured. A notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was CS(OS) 375/2010 Page 1 of 5 then issued to him by the plaintiff-company, requiring him to make payment of the dishonoured cheques. It is alleged in the plaint that as a counter blast, a notice dated 26.02.2010 was received by the plaintiff from defendant No. 1 which is a Union of Employees, threatening therein to hold day long dharna outside the office of the plaintiff-company, burn effigies and take out procession, coupled with the sloganeering in case payment was not made to defendant No.2. The plaintiff- company apprehends that proposed dharna/demonstration is likely to disrupt its functioning, besides causing inconvenience to its employees, business and customers, thereby adversely affecting its goodwill and market reputation. The plaintiff also apprehends damages to its property if the proposed demonstration/dharna is held. The plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the notice dated 26.02.2010 issued to it by defendant No. 2, threatening to hold dharna, etc. is illegal. It is also seeking injunction, restraining the defendants from holding any dharna, procession, etc and preventing ingress to and egress from its office premises.

2. The defendants were proceeded ex parte on 26.04.2011. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of Mr Percy Harver, by way of ex parte evidence. In his affidavit by way of evidence, Mr Percy Harver has supported, on oath, the case set out in the plaint and has also proved the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. CS(OS) 375/2010 Page 2 of 5

3. Ex.P-7 is the letter written by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff-company, admitting that he owes a sum of Rs 2,63,907/- to it and undertaking to pay the said amount w7ithin 30 days. Ex.P-8 is the letter, whereby defendant No. 2 resigned from the service of plaintiff-company, citing personal reasons. Ex.P-12 is the notice sent by the plaintiff to defendant No. 2 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring him to pay the amount of Rs 1,50,000/- being the amount of three dishonoured cheques issued by him.

4. Ex.P-13 is the notice dated 26.02.2010 sent by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff-company through its General Secretary Mr Ram Dularey. Vide this letter, defendant No.1 informed the plaintiff-company that it proposed to hold one day demonstration in which an effigy would be garlanded with the shoes and the said effigy would be garlanded by shoes. It was further threatened that thereafter the workers would walk for about a kilometer. It was also stated in the letter that if the salary and provident fund of defendant No.2 were paid, the proposed demonstration would not be held by defendant No. 1.

5. The case of the plaintiff-company is that defendant No.2 has resigned from service of his own and in fact, he owed money to it. This is also the case of the plaintiff-company that three chques of Rs 50,000/- each issued to it by defendant No. 2 were dishonoured and a notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was issued, calling him upon to pay the amount of those dishonoured cheuqes. CS(OS) 375/2010 Page 3 of 5 According to the plaintiff-company, it owes nothing to defendant No. 2 and in fact is entitled to recover certain amount from him. Be that as it may, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the provident fund or other dues of defendant No. 2 have not been paid by the plaintiff-company that by itself gives no justification to defendant No.1 to hold a demonstration, carry an effigy and conduct in the manner threatened vide letter dated 26.02.2010 (EX.P-13).

6. It is well known that tempers run high when demonstrations of such nature are organized by a union of workers. It becomes really difficult to control the mob and there is a serious apprehension of breach of peace and law and order in case such demonstrations/dharnas are allowed to be held in the vicinity of the factory where the workers are employed. The property of the employer is usually made a target during such demonstrations. The visitors and the employees who do not support such demonstrations are also targeted and manhandled, in order to prevent them from entering to premises of its employer. The obvious purpose is to put pressure on to employer, by resort to unlawful and violent means, to give in to demand of the Union. There is a strong likelihood of the property being damaged, the visitors and those employees who do not side with the Union being manhandled and obstructed during their ingress to and agrees from the premises of the employer, if such unlawful activities are allowed to be undertaken. In fact the business of the employer and functioning of its office and factory may come to a CS(OS) 375/2010 Page 4 of 5 standstill, unless appropriate preventive directions are issued to a Union taking recourse to such methods. The personal safety of the visitors, managers and other workers may also be in jeopardy unless unlawful activities of this nature are appropriately curbed.

7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the defendants are hereby restrained from holding any proposed dharna/demonstration, procession etc. within a radius of 100 yards from the office premises of the plaintiff-company. They are further restrained from preventing ingress to or egress from the above referred premises in any manner.

Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

V.K. JAIN, J NOVEMBER 29, 2012 bg CS(OS) 375/2010 Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court