(1.) The first appellant is a Trade Union, and the appellants 2 to 7 are its office bearers. The respondent i.e., Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has sued the appellants seeking the reliefs of permanent injunction, of various types, the main relief being to restrain the appellants from picketing, demonstrating, holding dharnas, gheroing officers and others and shouting slogans within a radius of 500 meters from the main gate of its several establishments described in the schedule to the plaint. Along with the plaint, the respondent made an application for temporary injunction on lines with the first relief of permanent injunction claimed in the plaint. The trial court granted an ex-parte order of temporary injunction. The appellant sought that order to be vacated by filing an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code. Since, the trial court, by its order dated 29.11.2018, made the ex-parte order of temporary injunction absolute till disposal of suit and dismissed the appellants' application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC, this appeal is preferred.
(2.) It is better to refer to the parties with respect to the position they hold in the suit for the purpose of clarity and convenience. The plaintiff's case in brief is that it is a Government company. It is a Defence Establishment, declared as a Public Utility Service defined under Section 2 (n) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Its Management has no role to play in formulating the policy for running a public sector undertaking. It is entirely within the domain of the Government of India. The defendants served a notice dated 10.5.2017 on the plaintiff to convey its intention to go on one day strike on 30.5.2017 protesting the disinvestment and privatization of public sector units. This was a policy decision taken by the Central Government. The plaintiff requested the defendants to reconsider their decision to hold strike and the plaintiff also addressed a letter to Assistant Labour Commissioner to call for a conciliation meeting to prevail upon the defendants not to go on strike. But nothing concrete came out. The plaintiff has stated that the defendants, in the guise of carrying on trade union activities, have no right to hold demonstration, and prevent workmen and officers from working and having ingress and egress to the factory. Hence, the suit.
(3.) The defendants admit to have issued a notice to go on strike, but they have contended that the public sector undertakings in the defence sector cannot be privatized; the move to privatize is against the Preamble to the Constitution. Their notice to hold strike is legal in tune with Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India. Their right cannot be curbed. The plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. It is the fundamental right of a Trade Union to assemble peacefully. There is no cause of action for the suit. Temporary injunction cannot also be granted.