Babu Ram & Ors. vs State of J&K & Ors.

In a suit for declaration filed by ChenabTextile Mills, Kathua, a decree was passed. This was to the effect that the petitioners and his union

would not hold any demonstration within 50 metres radius from the outer wall of the mill in question. This order is being challenged in the writ

jurisdiction.

In be seen that for challenging a judgement and decree, a procedure has been laid down in the code of Civil Procedure. Resort to writ

jurisdiction is not apt. Faced with this situation to withdraw the petition. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty that the petitioners can

take such remedies as are available to them under the ordinary law.

Before parting with this order the question as to whether Civil Court has jurisdiction in the matter and whether in junction can be granted in such

cases be adverted to.

Civil 'courts do have jurisdiction this has been considered in detail by the Delhi High Court in decisions reported M/s Association of State Road

Transport Undertakings Vs. The Association of State Road Transport Undertakings Employees Union (Regd.) 1986 Lab. & I.e. 1543. It has

been held that a suit fro perpetual injunction restraining the workman as one of civil natureand so cognizable under section 9 of the Code of Civil

Procedure.

In a judgement of the Delhi High Court reported as Engineering Projects Private Limited Vs. Engineering Project Private Limited Employees

Union, 1986 Lab. and I.C. 1266, the defendants were restrained from holding any meetings or shouting any slogans in the office premises of the

plaintiff company and within a radius of 50 metres from the same. The defend ants were restrained from preventing the officers, visitors and clients

of the company from entering or going out of the premises of the plaintiff. The trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties court after

hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judicial pronouncements cited by both the counsels, came to a prima facie conclusion

that the plaintiff has a right to protect his property and balance of convenience also lies in restraining the defendants from holding meetings, stage

dharnas in the premises of the plaintifffirm and so passed a restrain order preventing them from doing such activities in the premises of the plaintiff

firm and within a radius of 50 metres and also from demanding the building as well as restraining them from preventing the workers to enter the

premises of the plaintifffirm. Similar view has been expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case reported as Ram Singh Vs.

Ashoka Iron Foundary 1993 (23) Regal Reports and statutes (Pb) 680.

This petition is deposed with a direction to the petitioner to pursue the remedies available under the Code of Civil Procedure. There would be

no order as to costs.