S P KAPOOR Vs. NARESH SAHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the rule issued against respondents 2 and 4 deserve to be discharged on the sole ground that they were not parties to the suit in which order of injunction was passed. As regards respondent No. 1'. there was a whole -some order of injunction issued and he was restrained from functioning representing, posing and acting as General Secretary and negotiating with management till further orders as is apparent from the order of the trial Court dated 19.3.1982, appended as Annexure 'P3'. The contempt alleged against him is for his negotiating as a General Secretary of the Union and in getting an order of transfer made of an employee of the Bank from one place to another which is contained in acknowledgment by respondent No. 1 in a letter written by him to the employee dated 18.6.1982, copy Annexure 1 'P -4'.

(2.) TECHNICALLY , the order of injunctions passed by the trial Court has been violated because respondent No. 1 did represent as General Secretary of the Union in negotiating with the management and in getting the transfer effected. In the written -statement it has been pointed out that the ex -parte order of injunction, Annexure 'P -3', was later on vacated on 30.10.1982 a copy of which has been placed with the written statement of respondent No. 1 as Annexure 'R.I'. In the written statement it has further been highlighted that the petitioner's union was not even registered and the trial Court found while vacating the injunction order that there was no prima facie evidence of registration of the plaintiff -petitioner's union. Moreover, in the written reply, respondent No. 1 has tendered an unconditional apology.

(3.) KEEPING all the facts of the present case in view, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which lenient view deserve to be taken, because no wrong has been done by respondent No. 1 except getting in transfer of one person effected. In terms of the injunction order, respondent No. 1 was not entitled to even do that. Since the violation of the injunction order is technical, the apology tendered by respondent No. 1 is accepted and the rule against him is also discharged. Order accordingly.