JUDGMENT
Anil Kumar, J.
Page 1247
1. This judgment will dispose of plaintiff suit for declaration that the strike threatened by Dr. Vidyasagar Hospital Employees’ Union is illegal and seeking a restraint against them and their members from holding any demonstration, Page 1248 dharans, slogan shouting and in any way blocking the ingress and egress of the plaintiff, its office bearer, patients, visitors and other persons visiting the hospital up to a distance of 500 meters from the radius of the hospital known as VIMHANS, 1, Institutional Area, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi.
2. The suit was filed by Mr. M.M. Bargotra, Administrative Officer of the Hospital contending that he is authorized by a letter of the Chairman to file the suit. It was stated that plaintiff has its principal place of providing medical health care services at 1, Institutional Area, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi and plaintiff also has a medical center at Saket. Plaintiff has 246 employees on its roll. Plaintiff has also engaged the services of contractors for providing services under the contract assigned to them and the payments are made to the contractors as per terms agreed.
3. Plaintiff’s plea is that he is following all rules, procedures, bye laws as contemplated under the labor laws and despite that he was shocked and surprised when a demand letter dated 18th February, 2002 was received raising arbitrary demands by the employees union. These demands were raised by a newly formed union and its leaders whose main objective was to harass the management and to frustrate the peaceful working in the hospital and to achieve their illegal designs/motives.
4. The plaintiff contended that after issuing the demand letter dated 18th February, 2002, the defendant union also filed a claim before the Conciliation Officer, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi and the plaintiff’s management tried to resolve the disputes, if any amicably so that the working in the hospital is not disrupted and a congenial and healthy atmosphere is maintained. Though the workmen were not entitled to any of the demands but with a larger perspective in view, the plaintiff agreed to consider some of the demands to some extent.
5. Despite the effort of the plaintiff to resolve the matter, the defendant sent a notice of strike dated 29th April, 2002. The strike notice was replied in detail by the plaintiff by letter dated 14th May, 2002 where it was also advised that the defendant should desist from militant and disruptive activities. All the efforts of the management to settle the disputes amicably and reconcile the matters seem to have failed when the defendant vide their letter dated 14th June, 2002 refused to amicably settle the disputes and threatened the Plaintiff to settle their demands before 23rd July, 2002 failing which defendant and its members threatened to resort to coercive methods of raising slogans, shouting, blockage of passage and disruption of medical facilities in the hospital and to go on strike with effect from 24th June, 2002 necessitating plaintiff to file the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
6. By an interim order dated 21st June, 2002, the defendant was restrained from holding demonstration in a manner which may in any way obstruct the ingress and egress of any member of plaintiff management or any employee of the plaintiff and/or any patient or any visitor to the hospital and that they will hold the demonstration peacefully at least at a distance of 50 meters from the entrance of the premises of the plaintiff. Though after the interim order was passed against the defendant, an appearance was put through a Page 1249 counsel on 20th August, 2002 by the defendant, however, on subsequent dates, no one appeared nor written statement was filed entailing ex parte proceedings against the defendant. The plaintiff thereafter filed its evidence on affidavit and proved the documents.
7. The plaintiff has filed the evidence on affidavit of Shri R.A. Aggarwal, Personnel and Welfare Officer, who deposed that he is working in the plaintiff hospital and is conversant with the facts and circumstances. He categorically deposed that the plaint was signed and verified by Shri M.M. Bargotra who was earlier working as a Senior Administrative Officer and who has left the services of the hospital. He deposed that he is conversant with the signatures of earlier Sr. Administrative officer and has seen him signing and writing. The witness of the plaintiff also proved the authorization letter given by Shri J.N. Chaudhary, Chairman of the plaintiff concern, which was proved as Ex.PW1/1.
8. On behalf of the plaintiff, it was stated and proved that plaintiff is following all rules and procedure, bye-laws as provided under labor law and the demand letter dated 18th February, 2002 issued by defendant Union was illegal and arbitrary and without any just cause. Copy of the demand letter dated 18th February, 2002 was proved as Ex.PW1/2. The statement of claim by the defendant union filed before the Conciliation Officer and the reply filed by the plaintiff’s management were also proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 and PW1/4.
9. The plaintiff’s witness deposed that despite the various meetings between the management and the defendant union in order to resolve the disputes and demands in a congenial and healthy atmosphere, the defendants vide their letter dated 29th April, 2002 called for a strike on wrong premises and assumptions. The letter giving threat of strike was proved by the witness as PW1/5 and the reply sent by plaintiff was proved and marked as Ex.PW1/6.
10. The witness categorically deposed that despite all efforts being made by the plaintiff’s management to resolve the disputes, if any, amicably and even consider the demands which were not reasonable, the defendant refused to amicably settle the disputes and threatened to go on strike and disrupt the working of the hospital, if all their demands were not met before 23rd June, 2002.
11. The plaintiff contention is that despite the reference having been sent by the labor authorities for adjudication, the defendant has threatened to take law in his own hands and resort to slogans shouting, blockage of passage and disruption of medical facilities to patients and other visitors.
12. I have perused the pleas of the plaintiff in the plaint and the deposition of the witness of the plaintiff which have remained un-rebutted. As the pleas of the plaintiff have not been refuted, inevitable inference is that suit was signed and verified and instituted by a duly authorized person and the plaintiff has been complying with all rules, procedure, bye-laws as provided under the labor laws and the defendant does not have any right to take law in his own hands. The plea of the plaintiff that the demands of the defendant are illegal and arbitrary had not been disputed and rebutted. In any case, the plaintiff Page 1250 has a right to continue its activities without any disruption from the defendant and its members. The defendant may have a right to event heir grievance, however, they cannot disrupt the functioning and cause any inconvenience to the patients, visitors and the members of the staff of the plaintiff.
13. Law on the right to hold demonstrations by the unions/employees for pressing their demands stands crystallized by various judgments of the apex Court and by High Courts, some of which are as under:-
i. S.D. Sharma v. Trade Fair Authority of India, New Delhi, 1985 Labour I.C (NOC) 42 (Delhi)
ii. Jay Engineering Works Ltd and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., .
iv. The Association of State Road Transport undertakings v. The Association of State Road Transport undertaking employees Union (Registered) and Ors., 1986 Lab.I.C.1543 Delhi.
v. A.E.P.C v. A.E.P.C Employees Union (Registered), 1989(1) LLJ page 117 Delhi.
vi. Indian Hotel Company Ltd v. Taj Mahal Karamchari Union and Ors., 1992 Labour Law Reporter pg.561 Delhi.
vii. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd v. Bhartiya Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Karamchari Sangh and Ors., 1991 LLR pg.792 Delhi.
viii. The East India Hotel Ltd v. Oberoi Intercontinental Hotel Employees Union (Regd) and Ors., 1994 LLR Vol.25, page 929 Delhi.
ix. Delhi Public School and another v. The Delhi State School Karamchari Union (Regd) and Ors., .
14. From these following principles can be culled out:-
1.Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain suit of this nature
2.Immunity given to the Unions under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, does not extend to conduct those acts which may amount to offence.
3.Peaceful demonstration is a fundamental right of the Unions/employees.
4.It is the legitimate right of the workers to make legitimate demands and when not met, even go on peaceful but legal strike, a right so recognized under labor laws. Trade union has a right to pursue its trade union activities by peaceful methods. However, in exercise of such a right unions/employees cannot disrupt the functioning of the employer or obstruct willing workers from performing their duties. Further they cannot indulge in the acts of violence, physical assault, intimidation, threats etc.
5.There is no right of the unions/employees to hold demonstrations at the residence of the employer. This is specifically prohibited by the provisions Page 1251 of the Industrial Disputes Act and amounts to unfair labor practice on the part of the unions (See Schedule V Entry 6). Thus holding of any kind of demonstration even physical demonstration is per se prohibited at the residence of the employer.
6.Thus while it may be the right of the union to hold peaceful demonstration, such demonstrations cannot be allowed to become violent or intimidating in nature. The safety of those visitors who are visiting the employers premises as well, as those willing workers, including their smooth ingress and egress is also to be ensured. This balance is to strike between the two competing and conflicting interests. The Courts have devised the methods to ensure it by fixing the distance from the employers premises within which such demonstration etc would not be permissible meaning thereby Unions can resort to these demonstrations only beyond a particular distance. In this way they are able to hold peaceful demonstration and at the same time it is ensured that such peaceful demonstration does not relegate the aforesaid rights of the employer. This is a message which runs through all the aforesaid judgments
15.The defendants or their employers have no business or cause to cause inconvenience, harassment or to extend threats to plaintiff his employees and cause obstruction to these or others who may visit the plaintiff. Such conduct on the part of the employees of the defendants for the redressal of their grievance to put pressure indirectly and disrupt the functioning of the plaintiff is not permissible nor can be permitted in the present facts and circumstances.
16. Considering the facts, the defendants cannot be allowed to disrupt the activities, functioning, ingress and egress of visitors and the patients and create nuisance by raising slogans near the hospital where patients need peace and solitude. The right of the defendants to have a peaceful demonstration can be vouched safely, if they are allowed to hold peaceful demonstration without making such nuisance which will disrupt the solitude and peace of the patients and the willing workers, if they are allowed to do it at a distance of 200 meters from the boundary of the premises of the plaintiff.
17. In totality of circumstances, I, therefore, hold that the threat of strike given by the defendant is illegal and I restrain the defendant and its members from holding demonstration, dharnas, slogan shouting and in any way blocking the ingress and egress of the plaintiff, its office bearers, patients, visitors and other persons visiting the hospital in any manner, however, they may be entitled to stage peaceful demonstration and dharnas at a distance of 200 meters from the outer radius of the hospital known as VIMHANS, 1, Institutional Area, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff and against the defendants.
18. Suit is decreed in terms hereof and decree sheet be drawn accordingly.