Ramjas College vs Delhi University & College ...

on 6 August, 2014

Delhi High Court

Ramjas College vs Delhi University & College ... on 6 August, 2014
Author: Manmohan Singh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Order delivered on: August 6, 2014

+ CS(OS) No.1929/2011

RAMJAS COLLEGE ..... Plaintiff

Through Mr.Amit Bansal, Adv.

versus

DELHI UNIVERSITY & COLLEGE KARAMCHARI UNION &

ORS ..... Defendants
Through None

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. No one appears on behalf of defendants. For the last many dates they are not appearing and they
have also failed to pay the costs. After imposing the costs they lost their interest and they did not
participate in the proceedings.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has made his submissions on merit.

3. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff
and against defendants, its members, agents, representatives, associates and servants.

4. The plaintiff is a renowned college of University of Delhi. Defendant No.1 is an organisation of

non-teaching employees of University of Delhi of which defendant No. 2 is the general secretary and
defendant No.3 is the president. Defendant No.3 is also an employee of the plaintiff.

5. It is the case for the plaintiff that defendants have been time to time holding loud demonstrations
and agitation inside the premises of the plaintiff using microphones and loudspeakers which
adversely affects the academic activities therein. These types of demonstrations and threatening
language are becoming a regular feature of the defendants. While employees working continue to
hold demonstrations and agitations at the instigation of defendant No.1, they force their college
members to completely disregard their duties or perform them in an extremely cursory manner. The
employees argue that the demonstrations and agitation on instigation of defendant No.1 would not
amount to either leave or dereliction of duty and hence they would be entitled to their salaries and
non-payment thereof would lead to ugly situations.

6. The relevant facts leading to the present suit arte that the defendant sent a communication dated

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/19495240/ 1

 Ramjas College vs Delhi University & College ... on 6 August, 2014

30th July, 2011 to the Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi making an allegation against the
Principal of the plaintiff that the Principal had filed a criminal case against defendant No.3. In
another communication dated 2nd August, 2011 addressed to the Vice Chancellor, University of
Delhi, it was stated that the plaintiff filed an FIR against Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhary, Administrative
Officer of the plaintiff. It has been stated by the plaintiff that Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhary had
threatened to murder Dr. P.K. Malhotra, Convener of the Admission Committee of the plaintiff with
pistol and/or crush him under his car. This was immediately followed by a serious threat by Mr.
Sudhanshu Chaudhary to the Vice Principal, Dr. P.N. Duttagupta with dire consequences. The
plaintiff was well within its right to file criminal complaint against him. The threatened agitation is
an attempt to coerce and pressurize plaintiff to withdraw the said FIR.

7. On 3rd July, 2011 one employee of the plaintiff Mr. Chand Ram, Lab. Assistant, Department of
Physics indulged in gross misconduct at residence of a teacher Dr. P.N. Duttagupta and his
daughter. A complaint was lodged with the P.S. Maurice Nagar. The threatened agitation is an
attempt to coerce and pressurize plaintiff to withdraw the said FIR.

8. On 3rd August, 2011, defendants sent a letter to the principal of the plaintiff making allegation
against him and threatened to once again disturb the normalcy of plaintiff if all their demands were
not resolved within two days. The said letter was relied to vide letter dated 4th August, 2011 whereby
the principal replied to all the issues raised by the Ramjas College Karamchari Union and offered to
meet them to resolve all issues. The principal wrote to the defendants on 5th August, 2011 assuring
them that plaintiff is looking into all issues raised by them and requested them to call off their strike
and demonstration in view thereof. However, defendants rejected the offer of the plaintiff.

9. On 6th August, 2011, principal received a communication dated 5th August, 2011 from the
defendants stating that they shall sit on a Dharna in front of the principal's office at the plaintiff
college with effect from 10 A.M. On 9th August, 2011 with a further threat of intensifying the
agitation thereafter if their demands were not met.

10. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said dharna is a violation of order dated 23rd March, 2011
passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1922 of 2011 and in violation of Rule 51
of University Non-Teaching Employees (Term and Conditions Of Service) Rules, 1971.

11. It has been stated that despite the fact that issues raised by defendants are being looked into by
the plaintiff, the defendants are threatening to go on strike/dharna/demonstration thereby creating
hindrance in conducting public duties during office hours. In case the defendants begin with their
agitation, it would disrupt the normal functioning of the institution and hamper the decorum and
cordial working atmosphere of the plaintiff. The agitation will also restrict the ingress and egress of
the officials from the Principal's office, in front of which the dharna is being organised.

12. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an interim application being I.A. No.12537/2011, under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC praying for ex-parte interim injunction. Vide
order dated 8th August, 2011, the following ex-parte injunction order was passed:

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/19495240/ 2

 Ramjas College vs Delhi University & College ... on 6 August, 2014

"I.A. No. 12537/2011 (u/O39 R 1& 2 r/w 151 CPC) Notice for the date fixed Till next
date of hearing defendants, their employees, agents and members are restrained
from holding demonstrations, dharnas, shouting slogans, holding meetings as well as
from installing loud speakers or microphones with the area of 100 metera from the
college boundary. They shall also not obstruct ingress and egress of the staff
members, students and other visitors who intend to approach class rooms or office of
the college.

Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 be made within two days.

Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master"

The said order is continuing as of today.

13. The defendants filed their written statement and took the defence that the suit is not
maintainable as the plaintiff has not come to Court with clean hands and has suppressed material
facts. No cause of action arose against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff because
defendant No.1 is the union constituted by the non- teaching staff/employees of Delhi University to
protect its members from anti labour practices and other illegal and arbitrary acts and save their
legitimate rights from their employees. Defendant No.1 is duly empowered to make agitation and
protest against the illegal activities and acts of employers of its members by virtue of Article 19 of
the Constitution of India. Therefore, no one can interfere in the legal rights provided by Constitution
of India. It is stated that if the defendants are not permitted to protest against plaintiff with the
radius of 100 meters from the office of the plaintiff, then the same would adversely affect the
adjacent colleges as the office of the plaintiff is situated in a thickly congested area surrounded by
adjacent colleges of the University. The suit is not signed by the competent person duly authorized
by governing body of the plaintiff. All the allegations made in the suit were denied and disputed by
the defendants.

14. The plaintiff reiterated its stand in the replication and denied the allegations levied by the
defendants.

15. After the filing of the written statement, the defendants choose not to appear for certain
subsequent dates. However, after various opportunities, defendants filed admission/denial affidavit
thereby admitting four documents of plaintiff which are marked as Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-4.
Admission/denial stood concluded vide order dated 6th November, 2012. The right of defendants to
participate in the suit was forfeited vide order dated 6th November, 2012 on account of costs 10th
that were imposed vide order dated May, 2012. No chamber appeal was filed against the said order
and subsequently issues in the matter were framed on 5th April, 2013.

As the defendants were not appearing, the injunction order dated 8th August, 2011 was made
absolute till the disposal of the suit vide order dated 5th April, 2013.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/19495240/ 3

 Ramjas College vs Delhi University & College ... on 6 August, 2014

16. The plaintiff led its evidence by way of an affidavit of Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Principal of the
plaintiff to prove the facts stated in the plaint. PE was closed vide order dated 28th April, 2014.

17. Since the plaintiff's witness was not cross-examined by the defendants, the contents of the
affidavit filed by the plaintiff, therefore, stand unrebutted and the documents filed and relied upon
in the affidavit stand admitted. The defendants have not led evidence to prove their defence and to
rebut the contentions of the plaintiff. In view of the same, the defence and the documents of the
defendants stand not proved.

18. In the main prayer of the suit, the plaintiff sought for permanent injunction against defendants
restraining them from holding demonstrations and dharnas, shouting slogans, holding meeting etc.
within a distance of 200 meters from the office of Principal of the plaintiff, and/or obstructing,
intimidating or preventing ingress and egress or in any manner interfere with the activities of any
members of teaching and non-teaching staff and students of the plaintiff or any visitor or of any
students or in the premises of the plaintiff, and/or preventing the officers, employees and any other
person including teachers and students of the plaintiff from carrying out their normal functions with
the premises of the plaintiff.

19. The following decisions are relevant in this regard: M/s Asian Hotels Ltd. vs. Asian Hotels
Employees Union & Ors., 82 (1999) DLT 91 wherein it was held that "....Running a Five-Star Hotel
requires a high degree of efficiency. In the hospitality industry, it is only after a sustained effort that
a hotel builds up its image..... Any unsavory incident or obstruction in the egress and ingress or
demonstration which has the potential of becoming violent or a nuisance could scare away the
customer and mar the image of the hotel."

In ITC Ltd. vs. Maurya Shereton Hotel Kamgar Congress & Ors., 95(2002) DLT 133 while decreeing
a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from holding any demonstration or
indulging or causing any difficulty to the employees of the plaintiff from discharging their duties and
also ingress and egress of visitors, guests, observed that "....Plaintiff is dealing with hyper-sensitive
guests of different nationalities and is prone to different jurisdictions of the courts worldwide in case
these guests choose to initiate legal action against the plaintiff which can result in damage in
millions of dollars claimed by the guests of the hotel who are harmed due to ugly and unlawful
demonstration activity conducted by the defendants· cannot be allowed to indulge in such activities
under the garb or colour of constitutional freedom granted under Article 19 of the Constitution of
India for forming associations, Unions and hold Demonstration."

In Kwality Restaurant vs. Jagdish & Ors., 107 (2003) DLT 541, this Court granted a decree for
permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining the
defendants from holding any demonstration, dharna within the radius of 500 metres from the
boundary walls and entrances of the restaurant.

20. It is settled law that Trade Unions do have the right to peacefully ventilate their grievances,
however, they cannot disrupt the functioning of the business or damage the property by resorting to
demonstrations, gheraos etc. Reliance is placed on the decisions given in the cases of Standing

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/19495240/ 4

 Ramjas College vs Delhi University & College ... on 6 August, 2014

Conference Of Public Enterprises vs. Delhi Office & Est. Employee Union & Ors., 104 (2003) DLT
112, Escorts Heart Institute & Research vs. Delhi Mazdoor Sanghatan Regd. & Ors., 132(2006) DLT
308 and Rail India Technical and Economic Services Ltd. vs. Bhartiya General Mazdoor Congress &
Ors., 97 (2002) DLT 521.

21. The case of the plaintiff has not been rebutted by the defendants who have failed to adduce any
evidence in support of their case.

22. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and since the plaintiff's evidence has
gone unrebutted and no one appears on behalf of the defendants, no submissions were addressed
and in view of the settled law on the subject, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed to the effect that the
Defendants, their members, agents, representatives, associates and servants are restrained from:

(a) Holding demonstrations and dharnas, shouting slogans, holding meeting etc. within a distance
of 100 meters from the office of Principal of the plaintiff as per the site plan.

(b) Obstructing, intimidating or preventing ingress and egress or in any manner interfere with the
activities of any members of teaching and non-teaching staff and students of the plaintiff or any
visitor or of any students or in the premises of the plaintiff

(c) Preventing the officers, employees and any other person including teachers and students of the
plaintiff from carrying out their normal functions with the premises of the plaintiff

23. Decree be prepared accordingly.

24. No costs.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 06, 2014

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/19495240/ 5