BENGALI SWEETS CENTRE Vs. DELHI KARAMCHRI SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF has filed present suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, seeking to restrain defendant, its members, associates, friends, agents, assigns, etc. from holding any demonstration, gate meetings, blockade affecting the ingress and egress of plaintiffs, their customers, other employees, visitors, guests, man and material etc. in any manner whatsoever, staging dharna, slogan, shouting etc. in the building of M/s.Bengali Sweets Centre, G-19, South Extension Part- I, New Delhi-110 049 or anywhere around or outside the building in question.

(2.) DESPITE service, none appeared on behalf of the defendant. Accordingly, by order dated 19.05.2011 defendant was proceeded ex parte. Liberty was granted to the plaintiff to file ex parte evidence and the matter was placed before Joint Registrar for marking exhibits on documents.

(3.) SH.Ravinder Kumar Jain, has proved the partnership deed of the plaintiff no.1, which is exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1. He has further deposed that on 19.05.2009 about 9 PM a customer complained that chapattis served on him were not properly baked. The chapattis served to the above customer were made by Mr.Ishwar and as such, he was appraised of the said complaint and advised to properly bake the chapattis. Instead of assuring that he would take proper care while making the chapattis and doing the needful in this regard, Mr.Ishwar retorted that he would make chapattis like that only. The plaintiffs no. 3, Mr.Raj Kumar Jain, personally advised Mr.Ishwar to make proper chapattis so that there were no complaints by customers with regard to the quality of the chapattis served. However, Mr.Ishwar bluntly told to the plaintiffs no. 3, Mr. Raj Kumar Jain,? MAIN TO AISEI HI CHAPATI BANAOONGA, JO KARNA HAI KAR LO?. The plaintiff no. 3, Mr. Raj Kumar Jain was taken aback at the sheer impudence and rudeness of Mr.Ishwar?s conduct. He advised Mr. Ishwar to do his work properly and to do nothing that might annoy and offend the customers. Instead of feeling sorry of his conduct, Mr. Ishwar threw his dustor on the floor and shouted at plaintiffs no. 3, pointing his finger to the plaintiffs no. 3: MAIN TO AISEI HI KAAM KARAOONGA, TUJHEI JO KARNA HAI KAR LE. ZYADA SAMAJHDARI DIKHAIGA TOU ABHI SARA KAAM BAND KARA DOONGA AUR TAALEI LAGVA DOONGA?. Hearing the commotion caused by Mr. Ishwar?s outburst, M/s Munna, Ram Gopal, Janak, Tilak Raj, Naveen and Jai Bir Singh came to the Tandoor where Mr. Ishwar was misbehaving with the plaintiffs no. 3. On learning about the factual position mentioned above M/s Munna, Ram Gopal, Janak, Tilak Raj, Naveen and Jai Bir Singh also adopted a totally unreasonable and belligerent stance. M/s Munna, Ram Gopal, Janak Tilak Raj, Naveen and Jai Bir Singh openly said to plaintiffs no. 3 that he was no business to tell Mr. Ishwar to do his work properly and that all of them knew how to work and shall not tolerate any interference whatsoever from anyone, not even from the owners. At this the plaintiffs no. 3 advised M/s Ishwar, Munna, Ram Gopal, Janak Tilak Raj, Naveen and Jai Bir Singh that they should not be unreasonable in their approach. He reminded them that the success of the management depended entirely on customer satisfaction and, as such, customers? complaints had to be resolved to the satisfaction of the customers. However, M/s Ishwar, Munna, Ram Gopal, Janak Tilak Raj, Naveen and Jai Bir Singh refused to see any reason. They shouted at the plaintiffs no. 3 that he had no business to teach them how to work. They openly said that they would work as per their own wishes and if the management would interfere in their work, they would not hesitate to get the entire work stopped. When the plaintiffs no. 3 again tried to reason with them, Mr. Ishwar, Munna, Ram Gopal, Janak, Tilak Raj, Naveen and Jai Bir Singh said to him : "AB TUM DEKHO HUM KYA KARTE HAI. AISA SABAK SIKHAINEGEI KI YAAD RAKHOGEI". Having, thus, threatened the plaintiffs No. 3, all of them left their duties and walked out of the Establishment without any authorization. While walking out of the Establishment , they instigated M/s Sameer, Anand, Narinder, Ram Kishore and Ram Bir who were there still on their duties, to come out of the Establishment and as a result , M/s Sameer, Anand, Narinder, Ram Kishore and Ram Bir also left their duties without any authorization and followed M/s Ishwar, Munna, Ram Gopal, Janak, Tilak Raj, Naveen and Jai Bir Singh out of the Establishment. All of them then assembled out of the Establishment and held a meeting. After some time M/s Inder Pal Singh, Durga Dutt, Mukesh, Roshan, Brijesh Kumar, Mohan, Prem Chand, Manish, Ram Pal Singh, Suresh and Arvind were also seen arriving outside the Establishment and they also joined the gang of M/s Ishwar, Munna, Ram Gopal, Janak, Tilak Raj, Naveen, Jai Bir Singh, Sameer, Anand, Narinder, Ram Kishore and Ram Bir. On 20.05.2009 none of the above employees that is, M/s Ishwar, Munna, Ram Gopal, Janak, Tilak Raj, Naveen, Jai Bir Singh, Sameer, Anand, Narinder, Ram Kishore, Ram Bir, Inder Pal Singh, Durga Dutt, Mukesh, Roshan, Brijesh Kumar, Mohan, Prem Chand, Manish, Ram Pal Singh, Suresh, Arvind reported for duties. All of them have since been absenting from duties without any authorization whatsoever. The aforesaid acts reported against the above employees constituted a gross misconduct and, as such, the same if proved shall render them liable for strict disciplinary action. M/s Ishwar, Munna, Ram Gopal, Janak, Tilak Raj, Naveen, Jai Bir Singh, Sameer, Anand, Narinder, Ram Kishore, Ram Bir, Inder Pal Singh, Durga Dutt, Mukesh, Roshan, Brijesh Kumar, Mohan, Prem Chand, Manish, Ram Pal Singh, Suresh, Arvind were therefore issued a charge sheet on 21.5.2009 advising them to submit their explanation within 48 hours of the receipt of the same as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. It was further stated in the said charge sheet that if they fail to submit their explanation with in stipulated period, it shall be inferred that they have nothing to say in this regard. In that event the plaintiff No. 1 management is free to take such action, as it deems fit without any further reference to them. In the meanwhile, all the above employees were also advised to report for duties immediately. It a matter of great regret that none of the above workers reported for duties. All the above workers are/were, thus, absenting from duties without any authorization continuously with effect from 20.05.2009. Instead of reporting for duties and submit their explanation as required vide letter/charge sheet dated 21.05.2009, the above workers/Hotel Mazdoor Union filed a false and baseless complaint against the Management before the Labour Officer, alleging falsely that they have been refused duties or that their services have been terminated illegally. Whereas the fact remains that neither the plaintiff no.1 management terminated the services of any of the above workers, nor refused duties to any of them at any point of time. In view of the above, the plaintiff no.1 Management issued another charge sheet dated 3.6.2009 to the said workers.