AMBUBHAI and DIWANJI v. GUJARAT MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT — 1984 DIGILAW 231 (GUJ)

A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) IN the conflict between labour and management where Workers resort to demonstration slogan-shouting satyagrahas go-slow and even strikes in order to bring pressure upon the employer so that the demands made by them be accepted by the employer would it be wise and prudent for the Civil Court to intervene and grant injunction in favour of employer and restrain the workmen from resorting to demonstration slogan-shouting etc. ? In such type of conflicts there is no undisputed right of either party hence would it not amount to taking side with a party which may even impair the image of the Court? What should be the relevant considerations while deciding the question of grant or refusal of injunction in the matters connected with labour disputes? These are some of the important questions which have surfaced in this appeal from order. 1 A. The appellant-plaintiff is a firm of advocates and solicitors practising their profession of law as such. The defendants Nos. 2 to 12 are the employees of the plaintiff-firm and defendant No. 1 is a trade union registered under the provisions of the trade Unions Act 1926 ( 2 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order passed by the City Civil Court Ahmedabad by which the Court refused to grant injunction restraining defendant No. 1 Union and defendants Nos. 2 to 12 the employees of the plaintiff-firm from obstructing hindering and or shouting and printing slogans. affixing posters near the gate of High Court and around the Compound of the office premises of the plaintiff and from abandoning the work which they were required to complete and from staging demonstration or holding meeting in and around the office premises and also from causing damage to the properties of the employer. ( 3 ) TILL November 1983 the relations between the plaintiff-firm on the one hand and the defendants Nos. 2 to 12 on the other hand were quite cordial. But according to the plaintiff in the month of November 1983 one Miss Havawala an employee of the firm resigned. Thereafter defendant No. I Union requested the plaintiff to treat her resignation as cancelled. This request was turned down by the plaintiff. It also appears that the defendant. Union submitted a charter of demands dated 24/01/1984. The demands pertained to increase in wages and other conditions of service. Thereafter defendant No. I Union requested the plaintiff to treat her resignation as cancelled. This request was turned down by the plaintiff. It also appears that the defendant. Union submitted a charter of demands dated 24/01/1984. The demands pertained to increase in wages and other conditions of service. In the month of February 1934 negotiations were held between the plaintiff-firm and the defendants. According to the plaintiff since the defendants insisted upon the acceptance of the charter of demands the negotiations failed. After the failure of the negotiations the defendants started pasting posters containing slogans and started shouting slogans every day at the entrance of the office premises of the plaintiff-firm. In the month of March 1984 further activities of the defendants by way of painting on roads and of shouting slogans and circulating pamphlets took place. On account of such activities the plaintiff contends it became impossible to do the work in the office. On 16/03/1984 the plaintiff filed the suit being Civil Suit No. 1106 of 1984 in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad and prayed for permanent injunction as stated hereinabove. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff had taken out notice of motion and ad-interim relief was granted by the trial court. The defendants appeared in the proceedings and inter alia contended that the suit was beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the civil court and it was not maintainable. The defendants contended that in such a suit an injunction as prayed for cannot be granted since the matter was within the scope of definition of trade dispute. Therefore the suit was barred by the provisions of section 18 of the Trade Unions Act 1926 and at any rate the dispute was required to be resolved by an appropriate forum under the relevant labour legislation. According to the defendant this was no. a ease 111 which the court should exercise its discretion in favour of granting injunction as there was no prima facie case and the injunction that may be granted was not capable of being implemented. ( 5 ) THE trial court heard similar matters together and passed a consolidated common order on 18/04/1984 and ordered to reject the notice of motion taken OUt by the plaintiff. ( 5 ) THE trial court heard similar matters together and passed a consolidated common order on 18/04/1984 and ordered to reject the notice of motion taken OUt by the plaintiff. While rejecting the notice of motion the trial court relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of INDIAN BANK V. FEDERATION OF INDIAN BANK EMPLOYEES UNION REPORTED IN 1982-I LLJ 123. The appellant-plaintiff has preferred this appeal from order and has challenged the order passed by the trial court. ( 6 ) THE counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that the charter of demands was not an issue before the trial court. How and why the dispute arose and what was the cause for agitation was not an issue before the trial court and therefore it was irrelevant. In his submission the trial court ought not to have gone into it and similarly this Court also should consider it irrelevant. This. contention requires to be examined first. ( 7 ) THE averments in the plaintiff clearly show that there was a charter of demands. It pertained to the demand for basic wages payment of dearness allowance house rent allowance city compensatory allowance grant of leave. casual leave medical benefits payment of bonus provident fund gratuity etc. It is also averred in the plaint that after the negotiations failed the worker started their agitation. ( 8 ) IN the sphere of industrial relations there is bound to be disputes between the employer and employees With regard to some issues connected with the payment of salary and other benefits to the workmen and/or with regard to the working conditions of the employees. The workers resort to agitation with a view to show their collective strength and making it known to the employer as well as to all concerned that how strongly they feel about their demands. Demonstrations and strikes are the legitimate means to which the workers can resort. When workers resort to this legitimate means recognised by the employers and employees and also by the society and the Government the court cannot decide the issue regarding grant or refusal of injunction without taking into consideration the nature and origin of the dispute in question. Doing so would amount to turning the face away from the reality. The court is duty bound to take into consideration all the relevant and important aspects pertaining to the dispute. Doing so would amount to turning the face away from the reality. The court is duty bound to take into consideration all the relevant and important aspects pertaining to the dispute. Not doing so would amount to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in court. Hence the contention is rejected. ( 9 ) THE counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that it was not open to the defendants to raise and shout slogans in abusive language. Workers have no right to do so in the office premises and during office hours. Some of the slogans shouted and pasted are not even decent and cannot be permitted by anyone. The fundamental right to form association and resort to demonstrations cannot be denied to the employees but it can be exercised subject to restrictions. Similarly the immunity granted under section 18 of the Trade Unions Act 1926 would be available only so long as the activities are in furtherance of a trade dispute. It is contended that if an employee raises slogans and behaves in a rowdy or disorderly manner in the office premises and during office hours it would amount to breach of contract of employment and would amount to a civil wrong which would be an actionable tort. ( 10 ) IT is axiomatic to say that no workman can claim a fundamental right or a legal right to behave in an indisciplined and/or rowdy manner either during the office hours or out of office hours either with in the office premises or outside the office premises. No such right can be claimed nor any such right has ever been claimed by workmen. The allegation that indecent slogans are being painted and shouted has been denied by the employees. They contend that they have not transgressed the reasonable limits in shouting slogans and in making demonstrations. The question is not whether such type of actions which are alleged and which may be true are required to be permitted or prohibited. when the injunction is asked for praying that the workers be restrained from carrying on certain activities. the civil court while refusing such injunction does not permit the workmen to indulge in such activities. All mar is done by the civil court is to say that an injunction is not the remedy which can be availed of and which can be granted in such a situation. the civil court while refusing such injunction does not permit the workmen to indulge in such activities. All mar is done by the civil court is to say that an injunction is not the remedy which can be availed of and which can be granted in such a situation. This does not mean assuming that the allegations against the workmen are true that the workmen have right to behave in an indisciplined and or rowdy manner and that the civil court permits them to behave in that manner. The civil court refuses to grant injunction on certain well recognised principles. ( 11 ) THE law relating to temporary injunctions is contained in Order 39 Rules 1 2 3 and 3a of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 2 (a) of the Specific Relief Act (for short the Act) defines obligation. which includes every duly enforceable by law. Chapters 7 and 8 of the Act makes provision for grant or refusal of perpetual injunctions. ( 12 ) WHILE considering the grant or refusal of temporary injunction it must he clear that where the plaintiff cannot get perpetual injunction. he cannot claim the temporary injunction either. Moreover where an equally efficacious relief is obtainable in any other usual mode. the same has got to be taken into consideration while determining the question regarding prima facie case. Thus. having regard to the provisions of the Act and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code it is clear that perpetual injunctions may be granted by court to prevent breach of an obligation existing in favour of the plaintiff. But such an injunction cannot be granted if the case falls in any of the clauses of section 41 of the Act. Before it can be claimed that the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction it must be shown that the defendant is under an obligation. that is to say the defendant is duty hound to do certain act which if he fails to do can be enforced by law. Prima facie. the contract of employment. is not enforceable by law. Section 14 of the Act. inter alia. provides that the contract which is in its nature determinable and the contract the performance of which involves a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise cannot be ordered to he specifically enforced. Thus. as per the provisions of the Act. the contract of employments prima facie. is not enforceable by law. Section 14 of the Act. inter alia. provides that the contract which is in its nature determinable and the contract the performance of which involves a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise cannot be ordered to he specifically enforced. Thus. as per the provisions of the Act. the contract of employments prima facie. is not capable of being specifically enforced. Therefore. injunction by which it is sought that the defendant employees may not abandon their work and may do their work peacefully and in a disciplined manner in the office and during office hours and that they may not cause disturbance while working cannot be granted at all. At this stage question cannot be examined from the standpoint as to whether the action of the employees would amount to actionable wrong or not. In view of the fact that the workers right to go on strike is statutorily recognised and workers have a fundamental right to make demonstrations in support of their demands it is difficult to agree with the contention that such action of the workmen would amount to actionable wrong in tort. However at this stage this question does net require any further examination at all. ( 13 ) THE entire reading of rule (1) of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it very clear that the rule aims at the preservation of the property in dispute. The object of the rule is to see that till the respective rights of the parties are decided the property in dispute be preserved and be not allowed to be wasted. damaged or alienated or be not wrongly sold in the execution of a decree. The newly added clause (c) even covers the case of injury to the property and the dispossession of the plaintiff from the property in dispute. Order 39 Rule 2 provides for injunction restraining repetition or continuance of breach. This provision operates in the realm of contractual rights and obligations and in the realm of rights pertaining to property and such other rights. This provision cannot be attracted whenever there is dispute between an employer and his employees which has its roots in the demands made by workmen for increase in wages and for better conditions of service. This provision operates in the realm of contractual rights and obligations and in the realm of rights pertaining to property and such other rights. This provision cannot be attracted whenever there is dispute between an employer and his employees which has its roots in the demands made by workmen for increase in wages and for better conditions of service. ( 14 ) BY no stretch of reasoning it can be said that the provision of Rule 1 embraces and takes within its sweep the right to carry on ones occupation or profession (be that legal profession or any other profession) in relation to the dispute with ones own employees. Be it noted that in the instant case as is likely to be the case in the disputes between employer and employees the right to carry on profession (or occupation) by the plaintiff is not and generally will not be in dispute. The workmen do not dispute the right of the plaintiff to carry on its profession or occupation nor is the court called upon to determine the existence or the amplitude of any such right. The workmen try to project their demands and if need be try to bring pressure upon the employer. They dont dispute the right of employers to carry on their occupation/profession. ( 15 ) WHENEVER there is a dispute between the employer and employees in the sphere of industrial relations generally the disputes have their roots in economic demands of the workmen. Such disputes may take within their sweep certain related aspects also. With a view to bring pressure upon the employer the employees may resort to demonstrations. slogan shouting and such other well known and duly recognised modes of expression of their feelings. The disputes between an employer and his employees do not arise out of ordinary contractual rights and obligations or out of property rights. These disputes in the sphere of industrial relations have their roots in the perennial conflicts between capital and labour. They cannot be governed by standards of breach of contract of the bygone days of laissez-faire. The problems of relations between an employer and employees are peculiar in nature and therefore they are governed by special labour legislations. By their very nature generally they all outside the scope of the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The problems of relations between an employer and employees are peculiar in nature and therefore they are governed by special labour legislations. By their very nature generally they all outside the scope of the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There may be exceptionally few cases arising between labour and management-say rarest of the rare which may be covered by these provisions. Such cases would be only those in which disputes may have their roots in ordinary contractual relations and property relations and which have no connection with the disputes regarding the working conditions and the terms of employment. ( 16 ) WHEN the question as to the grant or refusal of injunction arises in respect of the disputes between the employer and the employees and the dispute has its roots in the economic demands made by employees court must make an attempt to study and understand the history and socio economic background of the dispute as well as the likely repercussions of the interim order on industrial relations and the society at large. In the conflict between employer and employees the struggle centres round a particular type of industrial dispute. Both employees and employers use psychological coercions. The employers resort to print media and make appeals to the citizens and consumers. They make appeal in the name of larger national interest the interest of the industry the loss to the nation in foreign exchange earnings etc. They also resort to coercive measures of suspension show cause notices and even lock outs. On the other hand workers react and justifiably resort to demonstrations satyagrahas strikes go-slow work to rule etc. As far as the workmen are concerned possibly they can only resort to demonstrations and slogan shouting only. They would resort to strike only when they are forced to. It must be realised that when workers resort to strike it is not an equally effective coercive measure like lockout since it would not serve their purpose without harming themselves. When an employer resorts to lockout and close down the factory he only loses the profit and no other inconvenience is caused starve and loses their bread and their family members also suffer. They face to him. When an employer resorts to lockout and close down the factory he only loses the profit and no other inconvenience is caused starve and loses their bread and their family members also suffer. They face to him. On the other hand when the workers resort to strike they prosecution and ultimately may even lose their job and face the miseries of economic death sentence. Thus in this type of disputes in the sphere of industrial relations an employer cannot claim any undisputed right Evidently there is conflict of interest between the two sides. In such conflicts the civil court cannot be expected to take a role which would help one side or the other without risking its own credibility and image. If the court grants injunction against workmen it is bound to impair the image of the court because the court would be taking the side of management for no public purpose as distinguished from private purpose. ( 17 ) IN the struggle between the management and labour. injunction by court is bound to create psychological atmosphere in favour of or against. one party. Moreover such an injunction is also likely to frustrate the movement of the workmen. In the war of nerves grant or refusal of injunction will have its effect on the psychology of either side of the groups arranged in the conflict against each other. It must be realised that in such struggles the management always tries to while away the time without conceding anything to the workmen The workers proceed further with the determination in their minds Now or Never. In such a struggle why the court should exercise its power to help one or the other side? It is not a question of power as to whether the court can or cannot grant such injunction. The point is to grant injunction in such a situation would either be wise or prudent? ( 18 ) IN industrial relations collective bargaining is a recognised mode of pressing ones demands and getting the same achieved. The disputes between the employers and employees have generally their roots in economic demands made by the workmen for the rise in salary and for better working conditions. When such demands are submitted and are to be pressed a need arises to convey the demands collectively and effectively. The disputes between the employers and employees have generally their roots in economic demands made by the workmen for the rise in salary and for better working conditions. When such demands are submitted and are to be pressed a need arises to convey the demands collectively and effectively. This is with a view to impress upon the employer as to how strongly the workers feel about their demands. The employer is required to be impressed upon that the demand is strongly backed by almost all the workmen and how all the workmen feel strongly about the same. As far as the workmen are concerned the demands are of vital significance to them. These demands cannot be conveyed merely by representations. The history of the labour movement in this country and throughout the world suggests that generally employers do not concede to the demands made by workmen by mere representations. Therefore there is need for demonstrations slogan shouting and strikes. This is the reason why demonstrations satyagrahas strikes slogan shouting etc. have come to be associated with agitation for pressing the workers demands. ( 19 ) THIS mode of expression of feelings of all workmen through demonstrations etc. has been recognised by the Managements the workers and he society and also by the administration and the police. Thus this is an accepted mode of expression of the feelings of workmen. When workmen resort to this accepted mode of expression of their feelings the civil court need not and so far as possible should not intervene and restrain the employees from expressing their feelings. Doing so would amount to utilising the court machinery to stifle the movement. It may also amount to taking sides with the management by the court. ( 20 ) IT must he realised that this is not a role played by the courts even in capitalist countries so much so that in America there is an Anti Injunction Act (i. e. Norris La Guardia Act 1932 which considerably restricts the powers of the court in the matters of grant of injunction in such cases. On the other hand ours is a country which is wedded to the establishment of socialist pattern of society on egalitarian principles enshrined in the Constitution. We are wedded to socioeconomic transformation of the society by peaceful means. On the other hand ours is a country which is wedded to the establishment of socialist pattern of society on egalitarian principles enshrined in the Constitution. We are wedded to socioeconomic transformation of the society by peaceful means. All that the workmen do and claim is that their salary be increased and their working conditions be improved They press their demands for little larger share in the cake that is being produced by the society. In this type of conflicts both the sides assert their right and try to highlight their own view points. In such a situation why should the civil court grant injunction? Surely it cannot be for the purpose of maintaining law and order since it is not the function of the civil court. Then. why should the court intervene in favour of either party? . ( 21 ) BEFORE granting injunction against workmen directing them to refrain from making demonstrations holding meetings shouting slogans and resorting to such other measures. it should be considered imperative by the civil court to take into consideration the following factors: (A) Prima facie the contention of the employer that an obligation existed in his favour and that the defendant-workmen is bound to perform the duty as alleged by him arises out of the contract of employment. The contract of employment is not capable of being specifically enforced. Therefore ordinarily there is no obligation which is enforceable under the law. (B) The relations between employer and employees are governed by the special labour legislation. Their disputes are resolved by machinery evolved under the Industrial Disputes Act and other labour laws. Though it may be permissible for the civil court to entertain a suit pertaining to the disputes between the employers and the employees the civil court should be slow to entertain such disputes. As far as possible civil court should relegate the parties to have their recourse to the special forums created by the legislature for resolving their disputes (C) There is statutory recognition of the right of workmen to abandon their work. The workmen can resort to strike in order to bring pressure upon the employers and with a view to enforce their demands. The right to demonstrate has been considered as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in the case of KAMESHWAR PRASAD V. STATE OF BIHAR REPORTED IN AIR 1962 SC 1166 . The workmen can resort to strike in order to bring pressure upon the employers and with a view to enforce their demands. The right to demonstrate has been considered as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in the case of KAMESHWAR PRASAD V. STATE OF BIHAR REPORTED IN AIR 1962 SC 1166 . When an injunction restraining the employees from making demonstrations raising slogans resorting to strike holding meetings is granted such an injunction is likely to impunge upon the fundamental right of the workmen to make demonstrations. As observed by the Kerala High Court in the case of GWALIOR RAYONS SILK MFG. (WEAVING) CO. V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR REPORTED IN 1982 LABOUR and INDUSTRIAL CASES 367 strikes. lock-outs satyagrahas and demonstrations are nothing new. in our countrya negative approach to lawful agitation by the working class to secure higher wages and better living conditions cannot be justified by resort to the plea of maintaining law and order in the industrial sector. (D) In cases where there is conflict between employers and employees and the workers resort to strike and demonstrations the question is not whether the action of the workmen is unlawful illegal or immoral or that it is desirable for the workmen to take the dispute to the streets. The question is what the civil court is expected to do and what should it not do? In such cases it is not for the civil court to play the role of a Police Officer or that of a District Magistrate. If the workmen become rowdy and behave in an indisciplined manner and try to damage the property of the employer or any other public property it is the duty of the Home Department of the State concerned and the duty of the Police to see that the law and order is maintained. There are adequate provisions in the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1932 and the Criminal Procedure Code as well as Bombay Police Act under which the types of situations as is being many a times grotesquely painted with exaggeration by the employers can be taken care of. Preliminarily it is for the Police and the District Magistrate to see that the law and order situation is maintained and there is no breach of peace. Preliminarily it is for the Police and the District Magistrate to see that the law and order situation is maintained and there is no breach of peace. The civil court need not and ordinarily should not try to do something which is not within its sphere and which cannot be effectively performed by it. (E) If employees do not work while on duty and/or behave in indecent or indisciplined manner inside the office/factory premises and may even become rowdy then employer can surely take disciplinary action against such employees for committing misconduct while on duty. It is the statutorily recognised right of the management to take action for misconduct of an employee. Instead of resorting to disciplinary measures which the management itself can take why does the management come before the court and pray that injunction be granted so that employees can be kept under control and that they may behave in disciplined manner. Is the Civil Court expected to become a super manager or supreme Labour Officer and see on behalf of the management that the employees are brought under discipline while they are on duty and are inside the office/factory premises of the employer? Is the civil court expected to do something which is within the rights of the management to do? (F) The civil court must bear in mind the provisions of section 41 clause (H) of the Act and should ask the question. What about equally efficacious remedy? Why not avail of the same? Before granting injunction the civil court should ascertain whether the Police help was sought for and whether the Police failed to give relief? Whether the District Magistrate or the State Government was approached by the employer and the District Magistrate and the authorities in the State Government failed to make necessary provision for maintenance of law and order? (G) The civil court should also bear in mind the provisions of Section 41 clause (i) of the Act. It provides that the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents may even disentitle him to the assistance of the court. This clause is ordinarily understood to mean that the plaintiff should come to the court with clean hands. (G) The civil court should also bear in mind the provisions of Section 41 clause (i) of the Act. It provides that the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents may even disentitle him to the assistance of the court. This clause is ordinarily understood to mean that the plaintiff should come to the court with clean hands. When the questions pertaining to the dispute between employer and employees arise the civil court must examine the problem from the point of view of the industrial relations and must examine the conduct of the employer who seeks the aid of the court from the following points of view: (A) Has the employer not contravened the provisions of any of the labour legislations pertaining to the Payment of Wages Act Minimum Wages Act Factories Act Workmens Compensation Act Employees Provident Fund Act Employees State Insurance Act and such other Labour Legislations? (B) Is the attitude of the employer towards the workmen reasonable? is there nothing in relation to the dispute in question and the past on the basis of which it can be said that the conduct of the employer is such that he should not be disentitled to the grant of injunction?unless the aforesaid questions are examined the civil court should ordinarily not grant injunction in favour of the employer. (H) For the purpose of examining the aforesaid questions from different angles the civil court should ordinarily refrain from granting ex parte injunction. Normally in the disputes between the employer and the employees notice as provided under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 should be considered a must and grant of ex parte injunction should be a rare exception. In whatever way the employer may present the picture regarding the situation prevailing on account of the activities of the workmen it can never be said that the dispute would have arisen abruptly. When there is conflict between employer and employees either side is likely to exaggerate and emphasise the points which are in its favour. Moreover as stated hereinabove the civil court should be slow to enter upon the field of industrial relations. It must be realised that this is a field earmarked specially for the forums created under the labour legislations. When there is conflict between employer and employees either side is likely to exaggerate and emphasise the points which are in its favour. Moreover as stated hereinabove the civil court should be slow to enter upon the field of industrial relations. It must be realised that this is a field earmarked specially for the forums created under the labour legislations. Therefore before granting an ex parte injunction resort must be had to the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code and a prior notice to the workmen should be insisted upon by the civil court. Unless this is done it will not be possible for the court to examine the questions and relevant aspects referred to in earlier para (g ). (I)AN injunction pertaining to the behavior of employees inside the premises of the employer be that a factory premises or office premises by its very nature cannot be supervised and effectively implemented by the civil court. Hence the civil court should be slow and as far as possible should not grant such injunctions. (J)IF an injunction restraining the workmen from carrying on their legitimate activities of staging demonstrations making Dharnas. doing satyagraha shouting slogans and holding meetings is granted will the image of the court be not tarnished since by granting injunction court is not serving any public purpose as distinguished from the private purposes of the management? Why employ the machinery of court so as to help one side in the struggle between employer and employees? (K) Will the court be able to implement its injunction? In case there is sporadic and/or mass scale disobedience of the injunction order how the court will enforce the same? Is injunction order not obtained only with a view to score one more point in the war of nerves between two warring factions? Then why court should provide a psychological booster to one of the groups? ( 22 ) NOW the case be examined from the stand point of the provisions of the Trade Unions Act 1926. The averments made in the plaint show that the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants the employer and the employees started on account of the resignation of Miss Havawala an employee of the plaintiff-firm. In January 1984 a charter of demands was submitted by the defendants. The averments made in the plaint show that the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants the employer and the employees started on account of the resignation of Miss Havawala an employee of the plaintiff-firm. In January 1984 a charter of demands was submitted by the defendants. The negotiations which took place in the month of February 1984 failed and only thereafter the workers resorted to agitational activities. The averments in the plaint show that the conflict between the employer and the employees has its roots in the dispute surrounding the resignation of Miss Havawala and the charter of demands submitted by the workmen. ( 23 ) THE definition of trade dispute given in section 2 (g) of the Trade Union Act would certainly cover the aforesaid dispute between the employer and the employees which is connected with the employment of a workmen and it is also connected with the terms of employment and the conditions of labour. Thus in view of the provisions of section 18 of the Trade Unions Act no suit would lie in respect of a legitimate trade union activity. The defendants are taking actions in respect of trade dispute as stated above. Therefore no suit would lie on the ground that the employees break the contract of employment or that the activities of the employees interfere with the trade business or employment of some other persons. In view of the provisions of section 18 (1) read with section 2 (g) of the Trade Unions Act prima facie the suit as filed by the plaintiff would not be maintainable. ( 24 ) THE counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions of he English Courts: @@@ 1964 appeal Cases 1129 1965 appeal Cases 269 (1971) 1 WLR 1004 (1960) 3 AER 255 (1979) 1 WLR 390 (1979) 1 WLR 697 (1968) 2 Queens Bench 763 (1967) 1 Queens Bench 97 (1969) 2 Chancery Dn. 106 @@@ for the following reasons the case law of the Courts in England is of little assistance in the sphere of industrial jurisprudence in our country: (1) Law evolves and develops in the background of socio-economic and political history of each country and law does not operate in vacuum. Legal principles are the product of socio-economic and political forces of the society concerned. Legal principles are the product of socio-economic and political forces of the society concerned. As far as our country is concerned at least after the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution the aim of the country is to establish an egalitarian society on the basis of socialist principles. This definitely is not the goal or the object of the British people and that of America. In the process of ushering in the socio-economic transformation of the society tensions and problems are bound to arise. The tension cannot be defused and problems cannot be resolved by having recourse to the legal principles of a society which is definitely not wedded to socialism. Therefore. the decisions of courts in U. K. and America are of little help as far as the questions pertaining to the industrial disputes in India are concerned (2) We adopted a path of development object of which is to establish a socialist society on the basis of the egalitarian principles. In such a situation the law has to be made an effective instrument of social change and thereby to achieve social justice. The principles of law which govern the western world are not likely to help us much in resolving our disputes mainly because they do not aim at transformation of the society. Therefore reliance on decisions of English courts are likely to confuse our thinking and may even smother or stifle the original approach. (3) While considering the relevance of English decisions in the realm of industrial jurisprudence the Supreme Court has observed in the case of ROHTAS INDUSTRIES V. ITS UNION REPORTED IN AIR 1976 SC AT PAGE 425 that English history political theory and lifestyle being different from Indian conditions replete with organised boycotts and mass satyagrahas we cannot incorporate English torts without any adaptation into Indian law. The Supreme Court has also observed: Our Constitution guarantees the right to form associations not for gregarious pleasure but to fight effectively for the redressal of grievances. Our Constitution is sensitive to workers rights. (4) It may also be noted that precedents are of no help in resolving the disputes essentially based on facts. In the above view of the matter the decisions of the English courts cited by the counsel for the appellant are of no help whatsoever and therefore it is not necessary to discuss the same in any further details. (4) It may also be noted that precedents are of no help in resolving the disputes essentially based on facts. In the above view of the matter the decisions of the English courts cited by the counsel for the appellant are of no help whatsoever and therefore it is not necessary to discuss the same in any further details. ( 25 ) COUNSEL for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of WESTERN INDIA CINE EMPLOYEES V. FILMALAYA REPORTED IN 1981 (2) LLJ 393. He submitted that the decision of the Bombay High Court is not based on concession made by the counsel for the appellant but it is on merits. The contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in para 22 of the judgment the learned Judge has clearly referred to the concessions made by the counsel for the employees. Once there was no challenge. there was no question of determining the validity or otherwise of the decision rendered by the city civil court. It is expressly clear that the decision of the Bombay High Court is based on concession and it does not lay down any principle governing the grant or refusal of injunction in such cases. ( 26 ) THE trial court has relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court rendered in the case of INDIAN BANK V. FEDERATION OF INDIAN BANK EMPLOYEES UNION REPORTED IN 1982-T LLJ 123. I am in respectful agreement with the principles laid down in this decision. However for the purpose of deciding this case it is not necessary to discuss the same in any further details. ( 27 ) THE petitioner contended that I have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal from order. According to him. as per the assignment of work (popularly known as sitting list) I can hear only the admission matters as far as appeal from orders second appeals and civil revision applications are concerned. According to him only Special Civil Applications can be heard finally by me. He further contends since there is no express mention in the assignment of work regarding the final hearing of these matters I cannot hear and decide the appeal from orders second appeals and civil revision applications finally. The contention is not wellfounded. Over and above the aforesaid work the assignment of work includes miscellaneous matters also. He further contends since there is no express mention in the assignment of work regarding the final hearing of these matters I cannot hear and decide the appeal from orders second appeals and civil revision applications finally. The contention is not wellfounded. Over and above the aforesaid work the assignment of work includes miscellaneous matters also. Whenever it has been found that it would be rather duplication of work and wastage of time to hear the matter regarding interim relief only and/or to hear interim applications and pass orders thereon and to keep the main matter pending I have directed that the main matter be placed before me for final hearing and I have accordingly heard the main matters. During the course of this sitting I have disposed of number of such appeal from orders second appeals and civil revision applications. No one has taken exception to this course being adopted by me. The lawyers the office of the High Court and all concerned responsible for the assignment and distribution of work have so far not found this to be in any way irregular or improper. It is rather strange and at least not in good taste that such a contention is raised on behalf of the appellant firm which works as State Government solicitors and one of the grounds advanced in its plaint for claiming injunction against its employees is that it is working as State Government solicitors and as lawyers and solicitors of many public sector undertakings. This is certainly an unhappy situation. Had it not been insisted upon and pressed by the counsel for the appellant-firm. State Government Solicitors. I would have rather chosen to forget this and not mention it at all. But though unpleasant it may be one has to perform his duty. I do not think that simply because there is no specific mention with regard to final hearing of appeal from orders second appeals and civil revision applications in the assignment of work I lose jurisdiction to hear these matters finally and decide the same. Therefore this contention being without any substance has got to be rejected. ( 28 ) NO other contention is raised. ( 29 ) IN the result the appeal from order is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed .