SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd vs ) Desu Mazdoor Sangh (Regd.) on 17 March, 2018

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ­01
SHAHDARA DISTRICT,  KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI.
Presided by :SH. SHARAD GUPTA

CS No. 2282/2016

BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
Having its registered office at
Shakti Kiran Building
Karkardooma
Delhi­110092 
Through its authorised representative
Mr. Pawan Kumar Mahur
   …………… Plaintiffs
Versus 
1) DESU Mazdoor Sangh (Regd.)
48/3, Banglow Road
Kamla Nagar, Delhi­110007
Through its General Secretary Sh. Subhash Chand 
   President Sh. Kishan Kumar Yadav

2) Delhi Vidyut Board Employees Union
E­1, Panchsheel Park
New Delhi­110017
Through its Working Presidents
Sh. Kishan Kumar Yadav and
Sh. Subhash Chand
 General Secretary Sh. D. C. Kapil

3) Delhi Vidyut Joint Front
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. DIV (OM)
Office HKS, RBI Colony, Hauz Khas
New Delhi­110016

CS no. 2282/2016                             BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V/s. DESU Mazdoor Sangh and ors.      Page no. 1/13
Through its Org. Secretary, Sh. Kishan Kumar Yadav 
Co­Ordinator Sh. D. C. Kapil.
…………… Defendants

Date of Institution :  14/10/2015
Order reserved on :  21/02/2018
        Order passed on    :  17/03/2018

Suit for declaration and Permanent Injunction. 

JUDGMENT

1. This is the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by
BSES YPL (herein after referred as plaintiff) against DESU Majdoor
Sangh  Ors. (hereinafter referred as the defendants).  It is a matter of
record   that   defence   of   defendants   was   struck   off   by   my   learned
predecessor vide order dated 22.11.2016.  

2. The plaintiff herein has come before this Court on the succinct
allegations   that   it   is   a   public   utility   service   under   provisions   of
Industrial   Disputes   Act,   1947   and   is   engaged   in   distribution   of
electricity in Eastern  Central Parts of Delhi. That plaintiff is duly
incorporated company under the Companies Act having its registered
office at Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma Delhi and Sh. Pawan
Kamar Mahur, Assistant Manager Legal is duly authorized to institute
and prosecute the present suit. That the plaintiff is successor entity of
erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board, being one of the distribution companies

CS no. 2282/2016                             BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V/s. DESU Mazdoor Sangh and ors.      Page no. 2/13
incorporated at time of unbundling of DVB under Delhi Electricity
Reforms Act, 2000. That the plaintiff has been extending all facilities
and benefits which were being enjoyed by employees prior to transfer
of their services to it and plaintiff take all steps necessary for redressal
of genuine and bonafide grievances of its employees. That the plaintiff
alongwith   other   distribution   companies   is   supplying   electricity   to
considerable population of Delhi through network of Grids Station,
Sub­Station and distribution lines/ cables and also maintained several
offices   /institutions   for   upkeep   of   a   network   of   Grid   Station   and
distribution lines. That electricity being an essential amenities Grids
distribution falls within purview of essential services maintenance Act
and the plaintiff is declared a public utility service under S. 2(n) of
Industrial   Disputes   Act.   That   electricity   being   one   of   the   basic
amenities   and   its   distribution   being   vital   for   the   well   being   of
humanity at large, any interruption in supply of electricity more so on
account of some coercive act likes strike by employees causes great
inconvenience   to   tremendous   hardship   to   members   of   public.   That
defendants are various registered, unregistered bodies of individuals
from the plaintiff company and others distribution companies claiming
themselves to be unions but they have not been recognized by the
plaintiff nor are they majority unions. That a joint fund in the name of
Delhi Vidyut Joint Front has been formed on behalf of the aforesaid
unions.   That   the   employees   of   erstwhile   Delhi   Vidyut   Board,   who
were   allocated   to  the   plaintiff   company,   were  and   continued   to  be
CS no. 2282/2016                             BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V/s. DESU Mazdoor Sangh and ors.      Page no. 3/13
governed   by   CCS(CCA)   Rules   and   FRSR   which   prohibits   any
government servant from resorting to or in any way abetting any form
of strike or coercion for physical duress in connection with any matter
pertaining to his services or service of any other government servant.

3.   That   on   01.10.2015   at   about   12:30   p.m.   employees   of   plaintiff
namely Sh. Kishan Kumar Yadav and Sh. Bishambar Dutt alongwith
20­30   other   accompanied   including   outsiders   gathered   at   GT   Road
Division   Office   of   the   plaintiff   and   starting   demonstration   raising
slogans and using abusive languages against the management of the
plaintiff   company.   That   the   assistant   security   officer   of   plaintiff
directed security personnel to close the main gate and called PCR.
That   police   officials   reached   at   the   spot   and   tried   to   persuade   Sh.
Kishan Kumar Yadav and Sh. Bishambar Dutt, but at their behest, the
mob  opened   the   main  gate,  entered  inside  the  Division   Office  and
gave   beatings   to   Sh.   Ravinder   Kumar   Bhandari,   Assistant   Security
Officer, who was admitted to GTB Hospital Dilshad Garden by the
police   officials.   That   said   persons   also   threatened   to   damage   the
properties of the plaintiff, so that FIR No.690/15, PS GTB Enclave
was lodged against Sh. Kishan Kumar Yadav and Sh. Bishambar Dutt
and their accomplices and cross­ FIR No.691/15, PS GTB Enclave
was   registered   against   Sh.   Ravinder   Kumar   Bhandari.   That   the
plaintiff   taking   serious   view   for   the   grave   and   serious   acts   of   Sh.
Kishan Kumar Yadav and Sh. Bishambar Dutt suspended them vide
CS no. 2282/2016                             BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V/s. DESU Mazdoor Sangh and ors.      Page no. 4/13
letter   dated   05.10.2015.   That   the   defendants   through   its   General
Secretary   Sh.   Subhash   Chand   sent   a   letter   No.   DMS/2013­
14/263/2014 dated 07.10.2015 threatening to revoke suspension of Sh.
Kishan Kumar Yadav and Sh. Bishambar Dutt by 09.10.2015, failing
which   DESU   Majdoor   Sangh   would   start   demonstration/   agitation
against the plaintiff and also threatened to go on indefinite strike and
to proceed  Gherao  / Agitation on 20.10.2015 at Head Office of the
plaintiff. That a Whatsapp message was circulated of 7.10.2015 in this
regard by the defendants. That in the past also, the defendants had
attempted   to   disrupt   functioning   of   the   plaintiff   and   another
distribution   companies   for   which   separate   suits   were   filed   before
Hon’ble Delhi High Court which are pending adjudication and wherein
interim relief was granted to the plaintiff. That there is no statutory
provision empowering the employees  to go on strike. Rather, CCS
(Conduct)  Rules  prohibit any strike  or  coercion agitation. Also  the
right to strike or withhold labour is neither a fundamental nor basic
nor   statutory   rights   and   can   be   regulated   and   stricted.   That   the
defendants   have   not   exhausted   their   remedies   under   the   Industrial
Disputes Act. That the threatened strike / demonstration is likely to
cause serious injury to the public at large and hence the present suit
has been filed. That the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:­

(a) A decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff
and   against   the   defendants   thereby   declaring   the

CS no. 2282/2016                             BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V/s. DESU Mazdoor Sangh and ors.      Page no. 5/13
proposed  strike/  demonstration,  agitation  and  gherao
on   20.10.2015   or   on   any   other   day   thereafter   as
threatened   by   the   Defendants   by   their   Letter   Ref.
No.DMS/2013­14/263/2015   dated   7.10.2015   and
Whatsapp   Messages   dated   07.10.2015  as   illegal   and
void.

(b) A decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the
plaintiff   and   against   the   defendants   their   members,
officers,   agents,   affiliates   accomplices   and   the
Defendant’s   Office   Bearers   from   resorting   to   strike/
demonstration, dharna, picketing, agitation etc. or any
other   coercive   action   as   threatened   by   them   on
20.10.2015,   or   on   any   other   day   thereafter   within   a
radium   of   500   meters   from   the   Plaintiff’s   Corporate
Head   Quarter   at   the   office   premises   of   the   Plaintiff
Company   at   Shakti   Kiran   Building,   Karkardooma,
Delhi­110092, Circle and Division Offices, Customers
Care   Centres,   working   stations,   sub­stations,   Grid
stations, stores and all installation etc. of the Plaintiff
company   and   from   obstructing   or   disrupting   any
activities of  the Plaintiff  Company or  its officers  or
causing obstruction/ impediment in ingress and egress
of   officers,   goods   or   customers   or   causing   damage/
sabotage to the property / installations of the Plaintiff
company.         

4. That it is a matter of record that the defendants did not file WS
and their defence was struck off by my learned predecessor vide order
dated 21.11.2016.

5. To   discharge   its   onus,   plaintiff   has   examined   Sh.   Ravinder

CS no. 2282/2016                             BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V/s. DESU Mazdoor Sangh and ors.      Page no. 6/13
Kumar   Bhandari   as   PW­1   and   has   relied   upon   the   following
documents

1. Ex.PW1/1 : E­mail dtd. 7.10.2015 issued by Vijay Jha to
Sh. Girish Kaul (OSR) (objected to mode of
proof.)

2. Ex.PW1/2 : Order dated 05.10.2015 (OSR)

3. Ex.PW1/3 : Order dated 05.10.2015 (OSR)

4. Ex.PW1/4 : Order   of   Hon’ble   High   Court   in   CS   (OS)
No.458/2012 (OSR)

5. Ex.PW1/5 : Letter   of   Delhi   Vidyut   Joint   Front   dtd.

26.6.2015 (OSR)
6. Ex.PW1/6 : Details of the Grid station etc. 
7. Ex.PW1/7 : Certificate   u/s   65   B   Indian   Evidence   Act
given by Sh. Girish Kumar Kaul
8. Mark A : Letter   of   DESU   Majdoor   Sangh   dtd.
7.10.2015
9. Mark B : FIR no.690/2015, PS GTB Enclave
10. Mark C : Security report dtd. 02.10.2015 filed by sh.
Manvir   Singh   and   Sh.   Ravinder   Kumar
Bhandari.
11. Mark D : Order   of   Hon’ble   High   Court   dtd.
19.06.2015 in OS 1195/2015
12. Mark E : Notification   dtd.   27.2.2012   publishing   in
Delhi Gazette
13. Mark F : Pamphlet   issued   by   Delhi   Vidhyut   Board
Employees Union. 

6. I have heard rival submissions at bar of Ld. Counsel for parties
and perused the record of the case.

CS no. 2282/2016                             BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V/s. DESU Mazdoor Sangh and ors.      Page no. 7/13

7. The very first question to be considered is whether the present
suit is maintainable.  In this context it would be appropriate to refer to
pronouncement   of   our   own   Hon’ble   High   Court   in   Vidya   Sagar
Institute of Mental Health Vs. Vidya Sagar Hospital Employees 124
(2005) DLT 640 wherein after consideration of relevant case law it
was observed as follows :­

14.   From   these   following   principles   can   be   culled
out:­

1.Civil Court has the jurisdiction to  entertain suit of
this nature (emphasis supplied)

2.Immunity given to the Unions under Section 18 of
the   Trade   Unions   Act,   1926,   does   not   extend   to
conduct those acts which may amount to offence.

3.Peaceful demonstration is a fundamental right of the
Unions/employees.

4.It   is   the   legitimate   right   of   the   workers   to   make
legitimate   demands   and   when   not   met,   even   go   on
peaceful but legal strike, a right so recognized under
labor 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 workers from performing their duties. Further
they cannot indulge in the acts of violence, physical
assault, intimidation, threats etc.

5.There  is  no right  of  the unions/employees  to  hold

CS no. 2282/2016                             BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V/s. DESU Mazdoor Sangh and ors.      Page no. 8/13
demonstrations at the residence of the employer. This
is specifically prohibited by the provisions Page 1251
of the Industrial Disputes Act and amounts to unfair
labor practice on the part of the unions (See Schedule
V Entry 6). Thus holding of any kind of demonstration
even physical demonstration is per se prohibited at the
residence of the employer.

6.Thus while it may be the right of the union to hold
peaceful   demonstration,   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.   This   balance   is   to   strike   between   the   two
competing and conflicting interests. The Courts have
devised the methods to ensure it by fixing the distance
from   the   employers   premises   within   which   such
demonstration 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 hold peaceful demonstration and at the same
time   it   is   ensured   that   such   peaceful   demonstration
does not relegate the aforesaid rights of the employer. 

8.  In the facts of the present case the plaintiff is a public utility
service engaged in distribution of electricity in Eastern and Central
parts of Delhi. It is undisputed that the plaintiff is supplying electricity
to considerable population in Delhi covering a substantial area and for
purpose of distribution of electricity the plaintiff is using a network of
grid   stations,   sub­stations   and   distribution   line/cables   at   various

CS no. 2282/2016                             BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V/s. DESU Mazdoor Sangh and ors.      Page no. 9/13
locations.   Furthermore,   for   upkeep   and   maintenance   of   said   grid
stations   and   distribution   lines   the   plaintiff   maintains   several   office
premises/installations   at   various   locations.     It   is   undisputed   that
electricity by its very nature is an essential amenity and its supply to a
major   portion   of   Delhi   can   not   allowed   to   be   subverted   by   the
defendants. 

9.  The defendants or their employers have no business or cause to
cause inconvenience, harassment or to extend threats to plaintiff its
employees and cause obstruction to these or others who may visit the
offices etc of the plaintiff. Such conduct on the part of the employees
of the defendants for the redressal of their grievance to put pressure
indirectly and disrupt the functioning of the plaintiff is not permissible
nor can be permitted in the present facts and circumstances.

10. Considering   the   facts,   the   defendants   cannot   be   allowed   to
disrupt the activities, functioning, ingress and egress of visitors and
the willing employees and create nuisance by raising slogans near the
main and branch offices of the plaintiff. The defendants also cannot be
allowed to disrupt the functioning of various Customers Care Centres,
working stations, sub­stations, Grid stations of the plaintiff. The right
of the defendants to have a peaceful demonstration can be vouched
safely,   if   they   are   allowed   to   hold   peaceful   demonstration   without
making   such   nuisance   which   will   disrupt   the   functioning   of   the
CS no. 2282/2016                             BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V/s. DESU Mazdoor Sangh and ors.      Page no. 10/13
plaintiff thereby crippling supply of electricity to major parts of Delhi
and the willing workers, if they are allowed to do it at a reasonable
distance from the boundary of the premises of the plaintiff.

11. It   has   been   urged   on   behalf   of   defendants   that   relief   of
declaration   as   sought   by   the   plaintiffs   has   become   infructuous,
however to my mind the relief for declaration sought encompasses the
proposed strike on 20/10/2015 or strike proposed to be held on any
day thereafter, in terms of letter dated 07/10/2015. Thus, the relief of
declaration has not become infructuous in as much as the threat of
defendants  to hold strike/demonstrations/agitation on any other  day
after 20/10/2015 in terms of letter dated 07/10/2015 still subsists. 

12. Now,   the   question   for   prohibiting   the   defendants   from
resorting   to   strike   etc.   within   a   reasonable   distance   from   the
infrastructure   and   offices   of   the   plaintiff   can   be   considered.   The
assertion of plaintiff is that the defendants be restrained from agitating
etc.   within   radius   of   500   metres   from   the   corporate   head   quarters,
division offices, customer care office, working stations, sub stations,
grid stations, stores and all installation of the plaintiff company. The
assertion   of   the   defendants   is   that   in   various   judgments/orders   the
defendants   have   been   restrained   from   raising   any   agitation   from   a
distance of 50 metres from plaintiff’s office. It is prayed that in this
case   also   the   defendants   be   restrained   from   holding   any   agitation
CS no. 2282/2016                             BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V/s. DESU Mazdoor Sangh and ors.      Page no. 11/13
within distance of 50 metres from the plaintiff’s office.  Reliance has
been placed upon BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. DVB Employees
Union CS(OS) 1195/2015 decided on 06/01/2016.  

13. In this regard it has been observed that the judgment of each
case is passed in its own facts. The ratio of BSES Rajdhani supra is
thus   of   no   help   to   the   defendants.   Furthermore,   assertion   of   the
plaintiff is that the threatened agitation at sub stations etc. if it turns
violent   can   damage   the   infrastructure   of   the   plaintiff   and   thereby
disrupt  the supply  of  electricity to the National Capital.    Also this
Court can not loose sight of the fact that the National Capital is a
thickly populated urban area where a distance of 500 metres at times
would   become   impracticable   and   would   infact   imply   that   the
demonstration is being carried out at a completely different locality. In
the   facts   of   the  case   it  would   be  appropriate  if   the   defendants   are
restrained   from   indulging   in   any   demonstration/strike/darna   against
plaintiff in radius of 200 metres from the head office and in radius of
100 metres from the sub stations as mentioned in pages 57 to 64 of the
paper   book   in   terms   of   interim   order   passed   in   this   case   dated
16/10/2015.

14. The suit of the plaintiff is thus decreed in the following
terms:  It is held that the threat of strike given by the defendants is
illegal  and I  restrain the defendants and its members from holding

CS no. 2282/2016                             BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V/s. DESU Mazdoor Sangh and ors.      Page no. 12/13
demonstration, dharnas, slogan shouting and in any way blocking the
ingress and egress of the plaintiff, its officers, employees visitors and
other persons visiting the various head and branch offices, grid station
etc.  in any manner, however, they may be entitled to stage peaceful
demonstration and dharnas at a distance of 200 metres from the head
office and in radius of 100 metres from the sub stations as mentioned
in pages 57 to 64 of the paper book. 

15. Parties   to   bear   their   own   costs.   Decree   sheet   be   prepared
accordingly. 

16.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Digitally signed by
SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA

GUPTA Date: 2018.03.17
16:30:52 +0530

Announced in the  (SHARAD GUPTA)
open court Additional District Judge­01: 
on  17/03/2018 Shahdara District: 
Karkardooma, Delhi. 

CS no. 2282/2016                             BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V/s. DESU Mazdoor Sangh and ors.      Page no. 13/13

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation