JUDGMENT
V.M. Jain, J.
1. For the reasons given in the application, delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly.
2. For the reasons given in the application under Section 149 C.P.C., delay in making good the deficiency in payment of Court fees is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly .
3. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by one of the defendants against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the Trial Court and the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (though reducing the distance from 300 metres to 50 metres).
4. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The suit was filed by the employers restraining the defendants from holding demonstration/meetings, dharnas, gheraos and raising and writing slogans and damaging head office building and obstructing the entry of the employees of the Electricity Board within a radius of 300 metres from the boundary wall of the head office. The learned Trial Court after hearing both sides decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants and the members of the union from holding any demonstration, dharnas, gharaos damaging the head office building and obstructing the entry of the officers and the employees of the plaintiff Board within a radius of 300 metres from the boundary wall of the head office, in any manner, except in due course of law. The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, upholding the findings of the Trial Court though the distance was reduced from 300 metres to 50 metres from the boundary wall of the head office. The learned, Additional District Judge also clarified that this judgment cannot be construed and amounting to curtailing just trade union activities of the defendants and they would be at liberty to carry on their legitimate trade union activities peacefully. In my opinion, both the Courts below were perfectly justified in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and no fault could be found with the same. This is especially so when the Courts below had placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Railway Board New Delhi and Anr. v. Niranjan Singh,1 A.I.R. 1969 Supreme Court 966 and the law laid down by this Court in Ram Singh and Ors. v. M/s Ashoka Iron Foundary and Ors.,2 (1993-1)103 Punjab Law Reporter 49. The authority B.R.Singh and Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors.3 1989(4) Service Law Reporter 394 (S.C.) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case and had rightly not been relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge. I am further of the opinion that the Courts below had correctly applied the law on the subject and had rightly granted the injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and no fault could be found with the same. Even otherwise, no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal.
5. In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.