Delhi High Court
Capital Business System Pvt. Ltd. vs General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union ... on 4 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2003)IILLJ1098DEL
JUDGMENT S. Mukerjee, J.
1. This is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from holding dharna/ demonstration/ agitation/ strike/ gate meeting/ slogan shouting within the radius of 200 mts. from the office of plaintiffs and residence of its directors.
2. Injunction is also prayed from causing obstruction in ingress and egress of directors, staff and suppliers etc who may be wanting to enter premises of plaintiffs.
3. The defendants were proceeded against ex parte on 5.4.99. Ex parte evidence has been adduced and documents have been exhibited.
4. The plaintiff's case is that since it is employing 174 workers in its Udyog Vihar Unit and that it is covered by Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, and as such cannot retrench any workman without prior permission of the appropriate Government.
5. Notwithstanding its hardship on account of drastic reduction of work due to change of government policy, the plaintiff is trying/ looking for appropriate avenues to absorb it's present work force in other productive activities, and to secure other orders for utilising the surplus man-power.
6. The plaintiff had secured the order for printing ballot papers for Punjab Panchayat Elections, but those elections got postponed.
7. The plaintiff further states that while it is trying to do the utmost for the benefit of the the workmen, however when the workmen were requested to work hard, the defendants instead prevailed upon workmen, by spreading disinformation, and rather have also been instigating and inciting the workmen of the said Unit, to take recourse to coercive, intimidatory, unlawful and illegal tactics for their (defendant's) own its illegitimate gains.
8. Defendant No. 1, it is averred, is consistently threatening the management about the adoption of agitational methods.
9. The plaintiff, has also duly proved by exhibited documents Ext. PW1/1 that pursuant to Presidential Ordinance No. 20/97 dated 1.10.97, part of the business of the plaintiff, has come to a virtual standstill and as a result thereof majority of the workmen are sitting idle.
10. The plaintiff has exhibited as PW1/2 a letter dated 21.11.97 by which the Union has illegally threatened that it will take recourse to agitation in relation to plaintiff's otherwise legitimate action of suspension of five workmen under the Standing Orders applicable to those workmen.
11. The plaintiff has also exhibited as exhibit PW1/3 as well as PW1/4, letters written by plaintiff Union to the SHO at Police Station Nangloi, which according to plaintiff establishes that defendants are bent upon to create unrest and ugly law and order situation.
12. There is un-rebutted testimony of the plaintiff to the effect that in the present case, in the event of any demonstration, strike, dharna, gate meeting, slogan shouting etc. being organized by the defendants, there would be every likelihood of breach of peace and disruption in the working of the establishment of the plaintiff at even offices/ residence, and the same would result into a law and order problem and public nuisance at such places.
13. Equally there is unrebutted deposition of the plaintiff to the effect that there is also a likelihood that the ingress and egress of men and material would be affected at such places, wherever demonstrations, strike, dharna, gate meeting, slogan shouting etc. are likely to be held, which will seriously effect that security system and may lead to huge financial losses apart from prejudice to the Government clients as the Plaintiff is a security printer, and every document printed is valuable.
14. The plaintiff has duly established, by unrebutted evidence, and the pleadings preceeding the same, that the rights of the plaintiff have been violated on account of the illegal actions of the defendants.
15. I need not to dilate in detail on the issues involved, since learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn my attention to reported decision of learned Single Judge of this Court titled Wings Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Pargatisheel Mazdoor Sangh, Delhi Pradesh and Ors. (2001) LLR 406) which is apt and fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
16. In view of the above, I hold that the plaintiff has established a strong prima facie case and that balance of convenience also lies in favor of the plaintiff who is bound to further irreparable loss and injury, in case permanent injunction as prayed for is not granted.
17. The plaintiff is engaged in the crucial activity of security printing. To ensure its efficiency and smooth functioning, without any impediment by way of any of the activities of the defendants forming subject matter of the suit, and at the same time by limiting the rights of the defendants to the extent granted under Article 19 of the Constitution, I hold that the plaintiff has established its clear and unrebutted entitlement to the grant of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants, their agents, members, servants, representatives from holding any demonstration/ dharna/ agitation/ strike/ Gate meeting/ slogan shouting in any form or manner within a radius of 100 mts. from the residence of its Directors/ Officers and offices of the plaintiffs at the following addresses:-
1. Mr. Ajay Khurana.
S/o Shri V.P. Khurana 54/2, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
2. Mr. Anuj Khurana S/o Shri V.P. Khurana 54/2, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
3. Shri V.P. Khurana, S/o Late Shri R.D. Khurana, 54/2, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
4. Mr. J.P. Narang, S/o Shri Lal Narang, F-845, Sector 15A, Faridabad.
5. Mr. M.C. Soam, S/o Late Shri Thakur Chamar Singh, A-3, 3-J K Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi - 110063.
6. Mr. Gurcharan Singh, S/o Shri S. Mohan Singh, 157 Chand Nagar, New Delhi - 11- -18.
7. Mr. P. Krishnan, S/o Shri K. Kumar, 169 defense Apartment, Miamvali Nagar, New Delhi.
8. Mr. A.L. Datta, Late Shri S.C. Datta, 35, Ritu Apartment, A-4, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
9. Mr. Narinder Singh Ahluwalia, Late Shri Udai Singh Ahluwalia, A-49, Jai Shiv apartment, C-2, West Enmclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110 034.
10. Mr. M. Bala Gopalan, S/o Shri V. Velappan Nair, BS-69b, Shalimar Bagh.
And plaintiff's Business premises' at:-
i) G-13, Udyog Nagar, Industrial Area, Delhi- 110 041.
ii) H-56 Udyog Nagar, Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 041.
iii) 428, Village Neelwal, Delhi- 110 041.
iv) 142, Village Neelwal, Delhi- 110 041.
v) 436, Upper Anand Parbat, New Delhi- 110 005.
vi) 30 & 31-B Prehlad Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110 005.
vii) 54/2, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi- 110 026.
18. The suit is decreed accordingly but with no order as to costs.