RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Vs. ASHIS KUSUM SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 14th of June, 1968 this suit was instituted by the Reserve Bank of India Act of 1934 against 1746 of its employees as defendants. The Reserve Bank of India has to perform many functions enjoined by the said statute. It has its various sections located at 15 Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, and 8 Council House Street, Calcutta. The defendants Nos.1 to 10, it has been alleged, are members of the supervisory staff who are Class II employees of the plaintiff Bank. The defendants Nos.11 to 1672, it has been alleged, are members of the All India Reserve Bank Employees Association and belong to Class II employees of the plaintiff. It has been further alleged that defendants Nos.1673 to 1675 are members of the Supervisory Staff who are Class II employees of the said Bank. The defendants Nos.1676 to 1746 are members of the All India Reserve Bank Employees Association. It has been further stated in the plaint that under Section 8 of the said Act a Central Board was constituted with certain powers, and the said Central Board had pursuant to the said powers made certain regulations and conditions of service for the said staff of the Bank known as the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the said Regulations. The clauses of the said Regulations have been set out in the plaint so far as they are material for the purpose of the present action. It has been further stated that in March, 1966 it was agreed by and between the plaintiff and the All India Reserve Bank Employees' Association and the All India Reserve Bank Workers' Union that the CODE OF DISCIPLINE IN INDUSTRY hereinafter referred to as 'CODE' would be applicable to employees of the plaintiff throughout India. It has been further asserted that there was an association of the Supervisory Staff known as All India Reserve Bank Supervisory Staff Association.

(2.) The plaintiff alleges that between the middle of December, 1967 and end of February, 1968 the defendants in breach of the provisions of the said Regulations and the Code and in breach of their contracts of employment took part in divers political demonstrations and political rallies, violent activities, concerted stoppage of office work, intimidation of some employees who are described as loyal members of the staff and divers other wrongful, illegal and tortuous acts resulting in frequent interruption of the plaintiff's normal business during office hours. It has been further stated that after the Government of India had proposed the Banking Laws (amendment) Bill hereinafter referred to as the said Bill with a view to introducing what is known as social control of banks in India, the defendants with a view to expressing their disapproval of certain provisions of the said Bill, called for and participated in what has been described as an illegal strike and illegal abstention from work on or about 28th February, 1968 contrary to provisions of law. It has been stated that the plaintiff is a "public utility service" within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as specified by relevant notification and as no notice of the strike as contemplated by Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act was given, the said strike was illegal. The said strike, it has been asserted, was in violation of the specific condition of the said Regulations and the Code. It has been further asserted that the said wrongful, illegal and tortuous acts of the defendants took place on the 28th February, 1968, and continued on the 29th of February, 1968 and they are alleged to have consisted of obstruction, intimidation and physical violence against the loyal workers including officers and members of the supervisory staff and Class III employees of the plaintiff, physical assaults on several loyal members of the staff including lady telephone operators, wrongful and illegal watching and besetting unlawful confinement of loyal employees of the plaintiff, acts of nuisance, violent persuasion, malicious interference with trade, business and employment of the plaintiff. Particulars of such alleged illegal, wrongful tortuous acts and of the breaches of service conditions and contracts of employment between middle of December 1967 till the end of February, 1968 have been set out in Part I of the Schedule annexed with the plaint and marked with the letter 'B'.

(3.) The plaintiff asserts that with a view to maintaining discipline and ensuring smooth and proper conduct of the business, the plaintiff proposed to take disciplinary action against such of the employees as were instrumental to and/or participated in the said alleged illegal acts mentioned hereinafter. According to the plaintiff what was at first an illegal strike soon developed into an illegal intimidation and coercion with a view to compelling the plaintiff to withdraw disciplinary measures taken or proposed to be taken by the plaintiff against such of the employees as were instrumental to and participated in the said wrongful, illegal and tortuous acts. It has been further alleged that in or about the beginning of March, 1968 the defendants and each of them wrongfully conspired together with and with each other with intent to injure the plaintiff and thereby compelling it to conduct its business in accordance with the requirements of the association of the defendants. It has been alleged that there were certain intimidations of officers, supervisory staff and loyal employees of the plaintiff at the said two places of its business of the plaintiff Bank, physical violence and molestation, violent persuasion, shouting deafening slogans, unlawful confinement of the loyal officers of the supervisory staff and malicious interference with the trade, business and employment of the plaintiff. It has further been alleged that the defendants committed breaches of the contracts of plaintiff's loyal members of the staff, and forced the loyal members of the plaintiff's staff to abstain from working for the plaintiff. The defendants had similarly conspired together with each other wrongfully to watch and beset the entrances exits and passages of the said two offices of the plaintiff, holding of meetings, pasting posters and shouting of deafening and offensive slogans, abuses and insults both inside the office premises and outside thereof in the vicinity of the office premises of the plaintiff, collectively leaving their posts and places of work and compelling other employees to do the same by intimidation and threat of physical violent persuasion, making mass deputation to the Manager and the departmental heads during office hours and intimidating and threatening the officers, supervisory staff and loyal employees, with a view to preventing any work being done or business being transacted so long as the wrongful demands of the defendants were not acceded to by the plaintiff. It has been further alleged that pursuant to and in furtherance of the said conspiracy the defendants on divers dates between March, 1968 and June, 1968 wrongfully and without legal authority threatened and intimidated the officers, supervisory staff and loyal employees of the plaintiff at the said offices with violence and molestations. Particulars of such alleged wrongful, illegal and tortuous acts are mentioned in Part II of the Schedule annexed to the Schedule marked 'B'. It has been further alleged that the defendants and each of them wrongfully conspired with intent to injure the plaintiff to create a nuisance and did in pursuance of their conspiracy create nuisance particulars whereof have been mentioned in the said schedule. It has been asserted that by reason of the aforesaid acts, the plaintiff's business, trade and employment have been and still are being interrupted and maliciously interfered with and the plaintiff has suffered and is suffering loss and damages and the defendants in breach of their contract of their service wrongfully and illegally deprived the plaintiff of its employees in the manner mentioned in the said two places of business. The plaintiff has also been deprived, it has been asserted, of its rights of enjoyment of its office and places of business and the defendants and each of them threatened to invade the plaintiffs right to the services of its employees and to the enjoyment of the said offices and places of business, unless the wrongful demands of the defendants are met. In these circumstances it has been stated that there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damages caused or likely to be caused by the aforesaid illegal and wrongful activities and wrongful invasion of the plaintiff's right. In the premises the plaintiff has filed this suit claiming: (1) Injunction restraining the defendants and each of them by themselves or by their servants, agents, nominee or assignees from: (a) threatening or intimidating any officer or any member of the supervisory staff or any employee of the plaintiff; (b) committing any act of wrongful confinement or detention of any officer or member of the supervisory staff or any employee of the plaintiff at the plaintiff's places of business at 15 Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta and 8 Council House Street, Calcutta or within 100 yards of any of the said premises; (c) threatening or intimidating any officer or member of the supervisory staff or any employee of the plaintiff with a view to stopping or interfering with the work and/or business of the plaintiff in the said two office premises of the plaintiff; (d) watching and besetting the entrances, exits and passages at the said two offices of the plaintiff or within 100 yards thereof; (e) holding any meeting or organizing any unlawful gathering or assembly inside the buildings of the said places of the business of the plaintiff or within 100 yards of the said places of business of the plaintiff with a view to interrupting the normal functioning of the plaintiff's work and/or business; (f) shouting insults, abuses and slogans inside the office premises at the said two places of business of the plaintiff or within 100 years of the said premises; (g) displaying posters within or outside the said two places of business of the plaintiff; (h) committing any act of malicious or wrongful interference with trade, business or employment of the plaintiff; (i) persuading or inducing any employee of the plaintiff to abstain from working for the plaintiff in the said two places of business; (j) intimidating any customer or constituents or caller of the plaintiff during office hours; (k) committing any act with a view to preventing work being done and business being prevented at the said two places of business of the plaintiff; and for other incidental reliefs.