USHA MEHRA ( 1 ) THE plaintiff in this case has sought restraining order against the defendants, inter alia, on the ground that these defendants mis-behaved with their Assistant Manager, in the hotel premises. The cause of filing the applications is that defendant No. l through its General Secretary and defendants 2 to 6 being office bearers of defendant No. 1, came into the restaurant and surrounded Mr. Javed Baig, Assistant Manager while he was on duty in the "baan Thai Restaurant" on 30th June, 1994. They abused him using filthy language. The offensive and abusive attitude of the defendants was without any no provocation given by the Assistant manager. The defendant No. 2 caught hold of him and pulled his tie and abused him while dragging. Defendants 3 to 6 followed suit. Defendant No. 2 also pushed him while other defendants kicked him. Defendants 2 to 6 physically lifted Mr. Baig and carried him from the said Restaurant and dumped him in the kitchen shouting slogans and used filthy and unparliamentary language. Because of this serious incident which took place inside the hotel, the Management found that the atmosphere was not conducive for the guests, visitors and others present in the hotel. After investigating the incident, the Management suspended the defendants 2 to 6 pending charge sheet and enquiry. While suspension letters were being issued to defendants 2 to 6, they started shouting slogans, used unparliamentary language against the Management and were joined by about 50 to 60 other employees. They also shouted slogans within the hotel premises causing public nuisance, panic amongst the guests as well as the visitors of the hotel. Defendants 2 to 6 being suspended employees were not permitted to enter the hotel premises. However, on 30th May, 1994 at about 10 PM, the said defendants in utter disregard of the security staffs warning, entered the hotel premises forcibly and behaved in a unruly manner demanding keys of Cafeteria meant for staff When keys were not made available they rushed to the main kitchen of the hotel and shouted slogans which brought other staff on duty there. They remained there till 2. 30 AM. It was in this background that the police report was lodged. The police arrested defendants 3, 4 and 6 while defendants 2 and 5 ran away. They remained there till 2. 30 AM. It was in this background that the police report was lodged. The police arrested defendants 3, 4 and 6 while defendants 2 and 5 ran away. Defendants 3, 4 and 6 were charged under Section 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Defendants 2 to 6 after being suspended started instigating other employees of the hotel to resort to violent activities including holding of demonstrations, dharnas, gheraos, strike and obstructing the ingress and egress of the willing employees. They did this in order to put pressure on the Management to withdraw the suspension order against them. Defendants also threatened that from henceforth there would be more number of persons who would join them and that they would block the entrance to the hotel, restaurant and other hotel areas as well as ingress and egress of Directors, officers,, Managers, willing employees and customers. They would hold demonstrations, gheraos and dharnas in order to harass the inmates of the hotel as well as to guests and visitors. They threatened to physically harm members of Director s and Officer s families. In this backdrop injunction was sought against defendants from instigating, abetting other employees and resorting to dharna, gherao, using filthy language, putting up loud speakers and that defendants 2 to 6 should not enter hotel premises at all. ( 2 ) DEFENDANTS have contested this application, inter alia, on the grounds that defendants 2 to 6 being office bearers of the Registered Trade Union cannot be debarred from attending their office which heppens to be situated within the precinct of the hotel. Being office bearers they had been looking after the welfare and interest of the staff of the hotel from its registered office besides attending the Union activities. On merits, it has been denied that any untoward or unruly incident took place on 30th May, 1994, rather absence was marked of an employee by the Assistant Manager on 29th May, 1994 without any justification. The employee had been sanctioned leave of that day by Senior Captain. The office bearers had just approached the Assistant Manager to clarify that position. The allegations have been cooked up by the Management. The Union members never obstructed administration of the Management of the hotel. It rather co-operated in all respects. No threat was given by the defendants nor strike call was given. The office bearers had just approached the Assistant Manager to clarify that position. The allegations have been cooked up by the Management. The Union members never obstructed administration of the Management of the hotel. It rather co-operated in all respects. No threat was given by the defendants nor strike call was given. The suit has been filed by the Management in order to pressurise them so that they should not pursue their legal and legitimate rights. . Defendants 2 and 3 are Senior Treasure and Senior Joint Secretary of the Welfare Association which is independent of the Union. It has its office also situated in hotel premises. Bank is also located in hotel premises. Defendants have their accounts in the said Bank. If the injunction already granted is not vacated, defendnats would suffer irreparable loss. ( 3 ) I have heard the contentions raised at the bar by Mr. H. L. Tikku, counsel for the Management and Mr. Swatantra Kumar, Senior Advocate for the defendants. It is well settled principle of law that there is no fundamental right for anyone to hold demonstration in the office premises if by holding such meeting or demonstration it intervene the normal functioning of that office. The fact that those who work in a office can go there does not confer on them the right of holding a demonstration or meeting at that office even if it be the most convenient place to do so. The fact that the citizens of the country have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble peacefully and freedom to form associations or unions does not mean that they can exercise these freedoms in whatever place they please. The exercise of those freedoms will come to an end as soon as the right of some one else to hold his property intervenes. Such a limitation is inherent in the exercise of those rights. The validity of this limitation is not to be judged by the tests prescribed by sub articles (2) and (3) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The freedom guaranteed under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) do not include the right to exercise them in the properties belonging to others. Keeping this principle in mind, we have to analyse the facts in this case. The freedom guaranteed under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) do not include the right to exercise them in the properties belonging to others. Keeping this principle in mind, we have to analyse the facts in this case. The Management/ plan tiff herein has placed on record documents indicating that the defendants and in particular defendants 2 to 6 had used unparliamentary language, shouted slogans, provoked the other employees from carrying on their duties. They resorted to violent activities includingholding of demonstrations, dharnas, gheraos. The police report was also lodged and police booked the defendants under relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With this background which facts though denied by the defendants we have to keep in mind that the plaintiff is a hotel where all sorts of persons visit, even foreigners visit and stay in the hotel. Citizens of this country also go there for refreshment and some stay therein. Therefore, any untoward incident, shouting slogans or obstructing the employees from carrying on their duties would have repercussions on the visitors as well as guests and the hotels. I am not unmindful of the fact that defendants being members of the trade union have a legitimate right to express their grievance but that has to be by lawful means,. Therefore, keeping these factors into consideration, the interim order was passed prohibiting the defendants to hold demonstrations, shouting slogans within the radius of 500 meters from the boundary wall of the hotel. This distance was reduced with the consent of counsel for the parties to 300 meters vide order dated 3rd August, 1994. The contention ofthe counsel for the defendants that this prohibitory order be further reduced is without force because the said order dated 3rd August, 1994 was passed with the consent of the counsel for the parties. So far as the question of defendants 2 to 6 attending their office situated in the premises ofthe hotel is concerned, Mr. Swatantra Kumar contended that these defendants are the Executive members of the union they have a legitimate right to attend the office of the Union. They have to perform other functions beside Union activities. The stay against them to enter Union Office has hampered the cause of the employees. At first flesh this argument appears to be very convincing, because the trade unionism is a recognised phenomena. They have to perform other functions beside Union activities. The stay against them to enter Union Office has hampered the cause of the employees. At first flesh this argument appears to be very convincing, because the trade unionism is a recognised phenomena. The law recognises the existence of Trade Unions as well as scope and ambit of legitimate activities. Therefore, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case such as conduct or an act will also be protected by Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act. However for seeking this protective umbrella, the inducement and interference must be by lawful means. It should not be accompanied by illegal means such as violence. Defendant No. 2 is the President, defendant No. 3 is the General Secretary, defendant No. 5 is the Executive Member and defendant No. 6 is the Vice President of the Union. Being the office bearers of the Union, Mr. Swatantra Kumar contended that they have to attend to the office of the union not only for the purpose of trade union activities but also to look after the interests of the staff of the hotel who are serving in various positions in the hotel and happen to be the members of this Union. Section 18 of the Trade Union Act, which is reproduced as under, gives a protective umbrella to the office bearers which by this injunction would be deprived to them: -. "18. immunity from civil suit in certain cases - (1) No suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any Civil Court against any registered Trade Union or any office bearer or member thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the Trade Union is a party on the ground only that such act induces some other person to break a contract of employment or that it is in interefence with the trade, business or employment of some other person or within the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or of his labour as he wills. (2) A registered Trade Union shall not be liable in any suit or other legal proceeding in any Civil Court in respect of any tortious act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute by an agent of the Trade Union , if it is proved that such person acted without the knowledge of, or contrary to express instructions given by the executive of the Trade Union. " ( 4 ) I am afraid this argument has no force. As already stated above the office bearers have no right to induce or interfere in the peaceful atmosphere of the hotel nor can they obstruct the visitors, guests or officials and employes of the hotel. If what the plaintiff has alleged is correct that these defendants not only obstructed the work of the management but manhandled their Assistant Manager and provoked other employees to gherao the other officers and shouted slogans, created unruly scene in the hotel premises than it can by no stretch of imagination be called legitimate right of expressing their grievances. Nor our Constitution envisages such right of freedom or speech. On police report being lodged against the alleged activists of the defendants the police arrested defendants 3, 4 and 6 at the spot whereas defendants 2 to 5 ran away. These defendants have been booked under Section 107 and 151 Cr. P. C. They have admitted their fault when they tendered written appology vide their letters dated 15th June, 1994 which is as follows:- " I may have inadvertantly and without any prejudice against Mr. Javed Baig made utterances for which I register my deepest regret and appology" ( 5 ) THIS regret and appology has been tendered after suspension. Therefore, as of right they cannot have gone to the Hotel premises and created disturbances by either demonstrating, shouting slogans or provoking other employees thereby causing hindrances and inconvenience to public at large. ( 6 ) AT the same time, the right, of the employees has also to be protected. It is not disputed that the Trade Union Office is situated in the hotel premises itself. However, its entrance is from office block. Therefore, if all the office bearers are prohibited from attending to the office it would amount to depriving the legitimate right to attend to the grievance Of the employees and protecting the interest of the co-workers. It is not disputed that the Trade Union Office is situated in the hotel premises itself. However, its entrance is from office block. Therefore, if all the office bearers are prohibited from attending to the office it would amount to depriving the legitimate right to attend to the grievance Of the employees and protecting the interest of the co-workers. Therefore, in order to maintain the scale of balance and taking the interest of justice in view I think no prejudice would be caused if single office bearer is allowed at a time to attend to the demands of the other employees by attending the Union s office. As per defendants own showing defendants 2 and 3 are the office bearers, attending to the welfare of the employees. Therefore, either of them can attend the Union office for an hour on alternate days. As already mentioned above, the law recognises the existence of Trade Unions, its scope and ambit and their legitimate activities, therefore, by prohibiting them to attend to the office would tent amount to stopping their legitimate activities by peaceful means and this cannot be done by prohibitory orders. However, to avoid any untoward incident, it is necessary that some restrictions should be imposed so that these defendants may not repeat their conduct which conduct has been admitted by them vide their letter dated 15. 6. 94. Protective Umbrella provided under Section 18 of the Act cannot be accompanied by such violence or violent acts. Nor Section 18 can afford exemption to office bearers from acts of violence. Therefore, taking all these factors into consideration, I order that defendants shall not instigate, abet other employees nor hold any demonstration, shouting slogans resorting to dharna, gherao, putting up loud speakers, within the radius of 300 meters from the boundary wall on all sides of hotel "the Oberoi" as well as from the residence of the Directors, Officers and Managers. This restraining order will equally apply to defendants 2 to 6, however, defendant No. 2 or 3 may attend to the Union Office on alternate day for one hour during banking hours in order to attend to the welfare activities of employees and to attend to the lawful Union activities. The apprehension of Mr. This restraining order will equally apply to defendants 2 to 6, however, defendant No. 2 or 3 may attend to the Union Office on alternate day for one hour during banking hours in order to attend to the welfare activities of employees and to attend to the lawful Union activities. The apprehension of Mr. Tikku, that if the defendant as office bearer attends the office of the Union, he will create disturbances in the office, has been dispel by the above order because one single employee cannot create disturbance in the office particularly when the bank is also situated in the same building and these defendants can go to the their accounts. If these defendants cannot be prohibited from going to the Bank and operating their accounts why should a single office bearer be prohibited from attending to the welfare of the employees by attending the office which happens to be situated in the plaintiff building. Therefore, to that extent, the interim order is modified and it is ordered that either defendant No. 2 or 3, as the case may be, can attend to the office on alternate days for one hour during banking hours to attend and look after the welfare activities of the employees. But if the office bearer who attends the office tries to create any interference or disturbance in the functioning of the hotel, then the Management is within its right to approach this Court for direction.