SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Monday, March 17, 2025
Printed For: Sahil Bhachawat, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 SCC OnLine Del 975 : (2005) 124 DLT 640 : PLR 2006 142
Del 9 : (2006) 108 FLR 451 (Del) : (2006) 4 SLR 311 : (2006) 1
LLJ 781 : 2006 LLR 283 (2)
In the High Court of Delhi
(BEFORE ANIL KUMAR, J.)
Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neuro
Sciences … Plaintiff;
versus
Vidya Sagar Hospital Employees Union …
Defendant.
CS(OS) 1093 of 2002
Decided on September 16, 2005
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ANIL KUMAR, J.— 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, dharans, slogan
shouting and in any way blocking the
Page: 641
ingress and egress of the plaintiff, its office bearer, patients, visitors
and other persons visiting the hospital up to a distance of 500 metres
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 centre 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 labour 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.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, March 17, 2025
Printed For: Sahil Bhachawat, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 metres from the entrance of the
premises of the plaintiff. Though after the interim order was
Page: 642
passed against the defendant, an appearance was put through a
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.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Monday, March 17, 2025
Printed For: Sahil Bhachawat, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 been 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. PW 1/1.
8. On behalf of the plaintiff, it was stated and proved that plaintiff is
following all rules and procedure, bye-laws as provided under labour
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. PW 1/2. 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. PW 1/3 and PW
1/4.
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. PW 1/6.
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 labour 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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Monday, March 17, 2025
Printed For: Sahil Bhachawat, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page: 643
labour laws and the defendant does not have any right to take law in
his own hands. The plea of the plaintiff that he demands of the
defendant are illegal and arbitrary had not been disputed and rebutted.
In any case, the plaintiff has a right to continue its activities without
any disruption from the defendant and its members. The defendant
may have a right to ven their 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
Lab. IC (NOC) 42 (Delhi)
(ii) Jay Engineering Works Ltd v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1968
Calcutta 407.
(iii) All India Bank Employees Association v. The National Industrial
Tribunal (Bank Disputes), Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 171.
(iv) The Association of State Road Transport Undertakings v. The
Association of State Road Transport Undertaking Employees Union
(Registered), 1986 Lab. IC 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, 1992
LLR 561 Delhi.
(vii) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd v. Bhartiya Mahanagar
Telephone Nigam Karamchari Sangh, 1991 LLR 792 Delhi.
(viii) The East India Hotel Ltd. v. Oberoi Intercontinental Hotel
Employees Union (Regd), 1994 LLR Vol. 25 929 Delhi.
(ix) Delhi Public School v. The Delhi State School Karamchari Union
(Regd), AIR 2002 Delhi 36.
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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Monday, March 17, 2025
Printed For: Sahil Bhachawat, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Page: 644
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 of the Industrial Disputes Act and amounts to
unfair labour 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 willin
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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Monday, March 17, 2025
Printed For: Sahil Bhachawat, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 metres 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
Page: 645
metres 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.
Suit decreed.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.
