ORDER
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. This Order would dispose of IAs. 10985, 1693 and 2490 of 2000.
2. I.A. 10985 of 2000 is filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By this application plaintiff is seeking to add 'Delhi Public School Society' also as plaintiff no. 3. Application is formal. Learned counsel for the defendant does not oppose this application. Application is accordingly allowed. 'Delhi Public School Society' is added as plaintiff no. 3. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
3. under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby the plaintiff is seeking to restrain the defendants, their members, employees or any other class III or IV employees of the plaintiff school from demonstrating within 200 metres of the school boundary wall/gates of the Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the School, for short) or interfering in the ingress or egress from the gates of the plaintiff-school or demonstrating in any manner whatsoever at the resident of the Principal of the School, within the School premises or the Chairman of plaintiff no. 2, Managing Committee of the plaintiff-School at 75-C, Sainik Farm, New Delhi or burn their effigies till the disposal of the Suit. By Order dated 15th February, 2000 the plaintiffs were granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction in the following terms:-
'Pending further orders, up to the next date of hearing, the defendants, their members, employees or any other Class III or IV employees of the plaintiff-School are restrained from holding any demonstration within the radius of 100 metres from the main entrance and the gates of the Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi. The defendants are further restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the ingress and egress from gates of the plaintiff school or demonstrating in any manner whatsoever at the resident of the Principal of the plaintiff-School within the School premises or the Chairman of Plaintiff No. 2, Managing Committee at 75-C, Sainik Farm, New Delhi up to the next date of hearing.
4. This Order is continuing till date.
5. On the other hand, defendants 1 to 7 have filed IA. 2490 of 2000 under Order XXXIX Rule 3-A and Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein prayer is made to the effect that Court be pleased to vary/quash Order dated 15th February, 2000 passed by this Court granting ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff. In fact the prayer, in essence, is for vacation of ex-parte Order dated 15th February, 2000.
6. It would be appropriate to take note of facts in brief which have led to the filing of Suit by the plaintiffs praying for decree for permanent injunction. The facts are pleaded in the plaint are that the School at Mathura Road, New Delhi was established 50 years ago and over the past five decades it has established itself as one of the leading School of Delhi. It has more than 500 students, teachers and staff of nearly 300 and is also situated at a prime location at New Delhi. The School to its credit has students who passed out of this School and are very well placed in life and are holding senior positions. It is also averred in the plaint that keeping in view the enormous strength and the fact that small children are imparted education strict discipline has to be maintained by all concerned including the teachers, staff and the class IV employees. The atmosphere and environment in the school has to be of the best standard much less it has any effect on the students who are very young and in delicate state of learning. The School has been maintaining very high standards of education, ethics, moral and behavior and all grievances of the staff are met with in proper manner and whatever permissible is made available to the staff including the class IV employees. However, any unreasonable demands which are beyond the reach of the Management cannot be met with and any such representation is accordingly dealt. It is further averred in the plaint that Class IV employees of the School have been raising unreasonable demands through defendant no.1-union and are alleging themselves to be members of the said union, which includes the remaining defendants, who are employees of the School although, from time to time, as and when representations are received, they are dealt with accordingly by the Managing Committee of the School in accordance with the law and the Rules in this regard.
7. The plaintiff goes on to allege that since the School is celebrating its golden jubilee year and various functions are held from time to time, in an attempt to embarrass the management of the School and to give in to unreasonable demands Class III and IV employees of the School gave letter dated 11th February, 2000 that they would abstain from attending the School on 12th February, 2000 when the special function was scheduled to be held and many people including parents of the ward were to attend. The said employees include the derivers of the School buses. This threat, according to the plaintiffs, amounted to violation of direct orders of the Management and also violation of code of conduct as prescribed under Delhi School Education Act and Rules. The genesis of the aforesaid threat is traced to the demands of defendant no. 1 contained in letter dated 24th January, 2000 followed by letter dated 7th February, 2000 reiterating those demands. It is mentioned that though these demands are to be considered and dealt with in accordance with Rules and Regulations, the employees have no right to resort to such pressure tactics. The School does not even recognise defendant no. 1. As far as defendant no. 2 is concerned it is a union of Class III and IV employees and it can meet its demands through proper channel but has no right to demonstrate at the gates or inside the School premises. It is also averred that the defendant no. 2 did not stop after absenting on 12th February, 2000 but through the defendant no. 1 gave a letter dated 14th February, 2000 that they would hold the demonstration on the main gate of the School which faces Oberoi Hotel from 16th February, 2000 onwards from 8.30 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. in the morning everyday. Thus they are trying to exert illegal pressure on the plaintiffs to give to their unreasonable demands. They even threatened to hold demonstration at the residence of the Principal and Chairman of the Managing Committee i.e. plaintiff no. 2. On the basis of these averments in the Suit prayer is made for passing a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants from holding such demonstrations or interfering in the ingress or egress.
8. As mentioned above, Along with the plaint IA. 1693 of 2000 was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which ex-parte award dated 15th February, 2000 was passed.
9. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendants apart from certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Suit, it is alleged that entire story given by the plaintiff in the Suit for permanent injunction is false, frivolous and misconceived. Defendant no. 1 is a registered union which had served a demand notice dated 24th January, 2000 because inspire of the assurances by the principal that members of the union was entitled to get certain benefits the same were not extended till February, 2000. It is also alleged that School is not extending certain benefits which are legally permissible to the employees. Various averments made in the plaint are denied and it is stressed that defendants have right to hold peaceful demonstration in order to press their legitimate and genuine demands when these are not met through the means of negotiations. It is also alleged that Principal of the School indulged in unfair labour practice and is liable to be prosecuted under Section 25 U and T read with Section 2(ra) and Schedule V of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. To the same effect are the averments made in reply in IA. 1693 of 2000 as well as in IA. 2490 of 2000.
10. Law on right to hold such demonstrations ny the unions/ employees for pressing their demands now stands crystalised by various judgments of the Apex Court, of this Court as well as of their High Courts. Following are some of the leading judgments :-
1. S.D. Sharma versus Trade Fair Authority of India, New Delhi reported in 1985 Lab.I.C. 42 Delhi
2. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. and others versus State of West Bengal and others : AIR1968Cal407 .
3. All India Bank Employees' Association versus The National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes), Bombay and others : (1961)IILLJ385SC .
4. M/s. The Association of State Road Transport Undertakings versus The Association of State Road Transport Undertaking Employees' Union (Regd.) and others reported in 1986 Lab I.C. 1543 (Delhi).
5. A.E.P.C. versus A.E.P.C. Employees' Union (Regd.) reported in 1989 (1) LLJ 117 .
6. Indian Hotel Company Limited versus Taj Mahal Karamchari Union and others reported in 1992 LLR 561
7. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. versus Bharatiya Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Karamchari Sangh and others reported in 1991 LLR 792 Delhi
8. The East India Hotel Ltd. versus Oberoi Intercontinental Hotel Employees Union (Regd.) and others reported in 1994 LLR 929 (Delhi).
11. Following Principles can be culled out from the aforesaid judgments:-
1. Civil Court has the jurisdiction the entertain Suit of this nature.
2. Immunity given to the union under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 does not extend to commit those acts which may amount to offence.
3. Peaceful demonstration is the fundamental right of the unions/employees.
4. It is legitimate right of the workers to make legitimate demand and when not met even go on peaceful but legal strike, a right so recognised under the labour 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 worker from performing their duties. 'Further, they cannot indulge in the acts of violence, physical assault, intimidation, threats of physical assault, etc.
5. There is no right of the unions/employees to hold demonstration 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 to any kind of demonstration, even physical demonstration, is per se prohibited at the residence of the employer.
12. In the case of Engineering Projects (P) Ltd. versus Engineering Projects (P) Ltd. reported in 1986 Lab.I.C.1266 this Court observed as under:-
'Obviously the plaintiff has a prima facie case. No doubt the defendants have a right to hold demonstrations, give speeches and shout slogans but they have no right to interfere in the working of the plaintiff. That is specially so when, according to the allegations of the plaintiff, the defendants have become violent.
13. There is no doubt that according to Art. 19 of the Constitution, every citizen of this country, has freedom form association or Union. But as was held by the Supreme Court in Railway Board, New Delhi v. Niranjan Singh, : (1969)IILLJ743SC , there is a limit to the aside fundamental rights inasmuch as there is no right to hold meetings and shout slogans at the premises legally occupied by another.....'
14. Thus, while it may be the right of the union to hold peaceful demonstrations, 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. Thus, balance is to the struck between two competing and conflicting interests. The Courts have devised the methods to ensure it i.e., by fixing the distance from the employers' premises within which such demonstrations 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 held peaceful demonstration and at the same time it is ensured such peaceful demonstration does not relate the aforesaid rights of the employer. This is the message which runs through all the aforesaid judgments.
15. In the present case, one has also to keep in mind that plaintiff is an educational institution. It is not undertaking any commercial or industrial activity in the popular sense of the term. Such educational institutions which are temples of learning are extended to even better treatment than the industrial undertakings when the question of allowing their employees in undertaking the union activities is to be examined. School employees and their Unions are expected to exercise more restraint. They should be conscious of the surroundings in which they are functioning. They are supposed to act in a more matured and responsible manner than the trade unions of industrial undertakings inasmuch as their activities are going to be noticed by hundreds and thousands of students of tender and impressionable age. Any violence, rowdyism, unnecessary shouting of slogans, particularly with abusive language may have adverse impact on the minds of such students. thereforee, it would be appropriate to fix the distance within which the defendants are not allowed to hold any such demonstration, etc. This is what is done by interim order dated 15th February, 2000. It may be mentioned that if defendants have legitimate grievances, they can adopt legal means for redressal of the same including by approaching the Directorate of Education and/or Court of law.
16. In a School like that of plaintiff where more than 5000 students are studying and their ages range from 4-5 years (for prep students) to 17-18 years (XIIth standard students) all possible steps are needed to ensure their protection as well, as there should not be any activity which has even slightest chance of causing physical or mental injury. Then, it is also to be borne in mind that many outsiders/visitors keep visiting such School including parents of the students. There may be many functions which the School organise from time to time. It may include sports meet, cultural functions, seminars, etc. On such occasions children and teachers from other Schools as well as dignitaries come and participate.
17. Pursuaded by aforesaid consideration, I see no reason to vary, modify or vacate Interim Order dated 15th February, 2000 which is hereby confirmed till the disposal of the Suit. IA.2490/2000 filed by the defendants is accordingly dismissed. IA.1693/2000 filed by the plaintiff is allowed.