- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Singh And Others v. Ashoka Iron Foundry And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
A revision petition challenges orders of the lower courts restraining the petitioners from holding meetings, demonstrations, and stage dharnas within the premises of the plaintiff-firm and within a 50-meter radius. The petitioners were also restrained from damaging the plaintiff's property and from preventing entry of other workers into the plaintiff's premises until the final decision of the case.
The plaintiff, Ashoka Iron Foundry, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-petitioners from holding meetings, demonstrations, dharnas, or obstructing the plaintiff's operations within the factory premises and within 100 meters radius. The plaintiff alleged that defendants Nos. 1 to 18 were employees who were retrenched following compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act due to financial crisis. Defendants Nos. 19 and 20 were secretary and president of the union respectively.
The defendants contested the suit, claiming mala fide intent, lack of jurisdiction of the civil court, and absence of cause of action, asserting their dismissal was due to their demand for wage enhancement.
During the interim injunction hearing under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendants argued the suit was not maintainable under Section 18(1) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, which bars civil suits against registered trade unions for acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. The plaintiff countered that this protection does not authorize illegal or violent acts.
The trial court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from holding meetings, dharnas, or demonstrations within the plaintiff's premises and within 50 meters, as well as from damaging property or obstructing entry of workers. The appellate court affirmed this order. The present revision petition challenges these restraining orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for permanent injunction restraining trade union activities in and around the plaintiff's premises.
- Whether Section 18(1) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 bars the suit and restraining orders against the defendants for acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
- Whether the restraining orders infringe upon the legitimate trade union activities of the defendants.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendants' Arguments
- The suit is mala fide and not maintainable in civil court.
- The civil court lacks jurisdiction as Section 18(1) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 bars suits against registered trade unions or their members for acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
- The defendants were dismissed for claiming wage enhancement.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The protection under Section 18(1) does not authorize illegal acts or violent measures.
- The plaintiff has a right to protect its property and prevent obstruction to its business operations.
- Reliance on precedent restraining union activities that disrupt business and prevent entry of officers, visitors, and clients.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Federation of Western India Cine Employees v. Filmalaya (Private) Ltd. [1981 — II L.L.N 536] | Section 18(1) of the Trade Unions Act bars civil suits against trade unions for acts in contemplation or furtherance of trade disputes. | Referenced by defendants to argue lack of jurisdiction and maintainability of suit. |
| Engineering Projects (Private) Ltd. v. Engineering Projects (Private) Ltd. Employees' Union [1986 — II L.L.N 732] | Trade union activities can be restrained if they involve illegal acts or obstruct business operations. | Supported plaintiff's contention and the interim injunction restraining union activities near premises. |
| Association of State Road Transport Undertakings v. Association of State Road Transport Undertaking Employees' Union [1986 — II L.L.N 915] | A suit for perpetual injunction restraining unfair labour practice is civil in nature and cognizable under Section 9 of the CPC. | Both courts relied on this precedent to uphold jurisdiction of civil courts in the present case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully examined the impugned orders and written arguments. It acknowledged the defendants’ reliance on Section 18(1) of the Trade Unions Act but found this provision does not bar civil court jurisdiction where the dispute is of civil nature. The court noted the precedent holding that suits restraining unfair labour practices are civil and cognizable under the CPC.
The court observed that the restraining orders only prohibit meetings, demonstrations, and dharnas within the plaintiff's premises and a 50-meter radius, and prevent damaging property or obstructing entry of workers. These restrictions do not curtail legitimate trade union activities but serve to protect the plaintiff’s property and operational rights.
Accordingly, the court concluded that the impugned orders are legal and just, do not amount to curtailing lawful trade union activity, and the civil court rightly exercised jurisdiction. The revision petition was dismissed as meritless.
Holding and Implications
The revision petition is dismissed.
The direct effect of this decision is the affirmation of interim injunctions restraining the petitioners from holding meetings, demonstrations, and dharnas within the plaintiff’s premises and a 50-meter radius, and from damaging property or obstructing entry of workers. The decision confirms the civil court's jurisdiction over such disputes and clarifies that Section 18(1) of the Trade Unions Act does not bar suits of civil nature seeking to protect property and business operations. No new precedent beyond this case’s facts was established.
1. This revision petition is against the order of the Courts below whereby the petitioners have been restrained from holding meetings, demonstrations, stage dharnas in the premises of the plaintiff-firm and within a radius of 50 meters from the same and are also restrained from damaging the buildings and property of the plaintiff as well as restrained from preventing the entry of other workers in the premises belonging to the plaintiff-firm till the final decision of the case.
2. Briefly stated, Ashoka Iron Foundry filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-petitioners from holding any meetings, demonstrations, dharnas, etc., in any manner in and around the factory premises and within a radius of 100 meters and also restraining them from obstructing the plaintiffs, its staff members or other visitors or to damage the property and also restrain them from preventing the entry of other workers or creating such hurdles in its working.
3. The plaintiffs further averred that defendants Nos. 1 to 18 are its employees, whereas defendants Nos 19 and 20 are secretary and president respectively. It was further case of the plaintiff that on account of financial crisis, defendants Nos. 1 to 18 were retrenched after complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
4. Defendants put in appearance, controverted the various averments made in the plaint and further averred that the suit is mala fide, that civil Court has got no jurisdiction and the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. It was further averred that the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with as they had claimed the enhancement of their wages.
5. During the consideration of the interim injunction application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, counsel for the defendants mainly resisted on the ground that the present suit is not maintainable in view of S. 18(1) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, which provides that no suit or other legal proceedings shall be maintainable in any civil Court against any registered trade union or any office-bearer or member thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the trade union is a party on the ground only that such act induces some other persons to break a contract of employment, etc., and in support of this, reliance was placed upon the Federation of Western India Cine Employees v. Filmalaya (Private), Ltd. [1981 — II L.L.N 536].
6. Counsel for the plaintiff, however, on the other hand contended that all the same the same does not authorise to do any illegal act or adopt violent measure to do any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. In support of his contention, he referred to the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported as Engineering Projects (Private), Ltd. v. Engineering Projects (Private), Ltd., Employee's, Union [1986 — II L.L.N 732], wherein the defendants were restrained from holding any meetings or shouting any slogans in the office premises of the plaintiff company and within a radius of 50 meters from the same. Similarly, the defendants were restrained from preventing the officers, visitors and clients of the company from entering or going out of the premises of the plaintiff. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judicial pronouncements cited by both the counsels came to a prima facie conclusion that the plaintiff has a right to protect his property and balance of convenience also lies in restraining the defendants from holding meetings, stage dharnas in the premises of the plaintiff-firm and so passed a restrain, order preventing them from doing such activities in the premises of the plaintiff firm and within a radius of 50 meters and also from damaging the building as well as restraining them from preventing the workers to enter the premises of the plaintiff-firm. This order was challenged in appeal and the appellate Court too after considering the relevant material on record found no merit in the appeal and consequently affirmed the interim injunction granted by the trial Court.
7. Before me, Sri Hari Parkash, president of the union, came present and submitted that written arguments in support of his contentions which are also in file be perused. In addition, he placed on record additional written arguments today.
8. I have carefully perused the impugned orders of the Courts below and the written arguments submitted by the petitioners.
9. Much emphasis has been laid by the petitioners to the effect that jurisdiction of the civil Court in the context of the present dispute is totally barred and for this, main emphasis is upon S. 18(i) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, reference to which has already been made in the earlier part of the judgment. This precise point has been considered by both the Courts in detail. Both the Courts have relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in Association of State Road Transport Undertakings v. Association of State Road Transport Undertaking Employees', Union [1986 — II L.L.N 915], wherein it has been held that a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the workman from indulging in unfair labour practice is deemed as one of civil nature and so cognizable under S. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I also find this objection of the petitioners without any merit. As per averments in the plaint, dispute per se appears to be of civil nature and the Court has rightly taken the cognizance of the same. Vide the impugned orders, the Courts have merely restrained the defendants, on whose behalf the present petition has been filed, from holding any meetings, demonstration, sitting on dharnas in and around the premises of the plaintiffs and within a radius of 50 meters from the premises of the plaintiff and also from interfering or obstructing with the right of the plaintiffs, its staff, visitors, clerks, etc., and also from damaging the building and also restraining the defendants from preventing entry of other workers. Such a restrain order cannot be construed either as unjust or amounting to curtailing the just trade union activities of the defendants. With the above mentioned stipulation, the defendants are at liberty to carry on their legitimate trade union activities peacefully. The impugned orders are thus perfectly legal and just and do not suffer from any illegality. The revision-petition is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Alert