LOKESHWAR PRASAD ( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the defendants named, above. The case of the plaintiff Bank, in brief, is that the plaintiff bank is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a Nationalized Bank, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 and Sh. Avtar Singh, Manager (Personnel) and Shri Satbir Singh, Manager (Personnel) are the principal officers of the plaintiff bank who are duly authorised and competent to sign and very the plaint and institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank. Defendant No. 1 is the Action Committee, formed by the members of defendants 2, 3,4 and 5 who are registered Trade Unions representing some of the officers of the plaintiff Bank and defendants 6 to 21 are the office bearers of the above said Unions and/or are the members of the Punjab and Sind Bank Officers Joint Action Committee formed by the Unions. 1. A. It is alleged that the plaintiff, being a Banking Company under the superintendence of the Reserve Bank of India and/or Ministry of Finance, Government of India, is guided by the policy and the guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time regarding the management of the plaintiff Bank including the policy governing the recruitment and promotion of members of the staff of the plaintiff Bank. The Government of India have issued, guidelines under Regulation 17 of the Punjab and Sind Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1982 regarding the promotion of officers from Junior Management Grade to Middle Management Grade Scale II and so on. In pursuance of the above said guidelines, issued by the Government of India, the plaintiff Bank has formulated the. promotion policy of its officers which was duly circulated with upto date amendments. 1. B It is stated that in terms of the above policy the plaintiff Bank notified in October, 1986 that a written test would be held for the eligible officers of Junior Management Grade Scale-l at New Delhi on 8th November, 1986. promotion policy of its officers which was duly circulated with upto date amendments. 1. B It is stated that in terms of the above policy the plaintiff Bank notified in October, 1986 that a written test would be held for the eligible officers of Junior Management Grade Scale-l at New Delhi on 8th November, 1986. Defendant No. 5 challenged the above policy of the plaintiff Bank by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Madras and in the above said writ petition, on a request, made by defendant No. 4, it was ordered by High Court of Madras that promotion, if any, made by the plaintiff Bank would be subject to the out come of the writ petition. The writ petition is stated to be still pending in the High Court of Madras. 1. C The plaintiff Bank, it is, averred, made all preparations for conducting the written examination on 8th November, 1986 at New Delhi and officers from all parts of the Country came to New Delhi to appear in the said examination but the defendants and its other members forcibly asked the officers to leave the Examination Hall despite the fact that majority of them desired to appear in the said written test. It is alleged that the defendant forcibly did not permit many eligible candidates even to enter the Examination Hall as a result of which but for a few candidates none could appear in the above said examination. 1. D On 8th November, 1986 the defendents submitted a Memorandum to the Management and Chairman of the plaintiff Bank informing that the written test conducted by the plaintiff Bank had been boycotted and a Joint Action Committee had been formed. It was desired in the said Memorandum that written examination, which was one of the conditions for promotion be scrapped and dispensed with. It is stated that to resolve the matter amicably discussions were held but the same yielded no results and the defendants issued and circulated a communication dated the 23rd February, 1987, representing that talks had failed due to dead lock and they would stage a dharna (demonstration) from 9th March, 1987 from 10. 00 am to 5. 00 pm. It is stated that to resolve the matter amicably discussions were held but the same yielded no results and the defendants issued and circulated a communication dated the 23rd February, 1987, representing that talks had failed due to dead lock and they would stage a dharna (demonstration) from 9th March, 1987 from 10. 00 am to 5. 00 pm. On 4th March, 1987 some members to the Joint Action Committee met the representative of the Management of the plaintiff Bank and left the meeting with a threat that not only dharna and demonstration would be held on 9th March, 1987 but no person would be allowed inside the Head Office of the plaintiff Bank or the Branch and that the defendants would also indulge in gheraos etc. , which was violative of section 36 AD. of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and provisions contained in the Punjab and Sind Bank Officers, Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1981. Apprehending breach of peace and violence the plaintiff filed a suit (S. No. 557/87) which is still pending. In the above suit interim order have been passed against the defendants. 1. E It is alleged that in view of the interim orders passed by this court in S. No. 557/87 the defendants could not create law and order problem at the head office of the plaintiff Bank but the members of the defendants went to the residences of the executives of the plaintiff Bank and other offices and created impediments, embarrassed the family members of the executives of the Plaintiff Bank and raised filthy slogans, at each of such places. The defendants by means of a communication dated 9th March, 1987 gave a notice to the plaintiff Bank stating that they would hold dharnas and demonstrations on March 21, 1987 at all Zonal Offices, Regional Offices and other Branches of the plaintiff Bank. It is alleged that the defendant are adamant to create interruption and impediments, in the normal functioning of the Plaintiff Bank. It is alleged that there is an imminent danger and threat to the Plaintiffs properties and to lives of its employees, executives and customers and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the defendants are allowed to carry out their threat. It is alleged that there is an imminent danger and threat to the Plaintiffs properties and to lives of its employees, executives and customers and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the defendants are allowed to carry out their threat. It has been prayer that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff Bank and against the defendants for permanent induction restraining the defendants, their offices, office bearers, agents, members and any other person acting through them or for them from interfering and/or obstructing the ingress and egress of the employees, Customers executives and any person dealing the plaintiff Bank directly or indirectly, preventing the plaintiff from carrying out its business and Banking activities at all Zonal, Regional and Branch offices in the entire Union territory of Delhi specially at premises No. C-14/ 16, Atma Ram House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, 18/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, and Branches at H-Block, M-14, Scindia House, G-Block42, H. 11, B- 45, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and at 48 Janpath, New Delhi and residential premises bearing No. M-104, Greater Kailash-l New Delhi, F-9 Jangpura Extension, New Delhi; J-170 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. It is further prayed that the defendants their office bearers, agents, members and any person acting through or for them be also restrained from advocating, instigating and holding demonstrations, meetings, shouting slogans, abuses etc. within a radius of 300 mtrs. of the above said officers of the Plaintiff Bank and residential premises of the Officers of the Plaintiff Bank to above. The Plaintiff Bank has also claimed the costs of the proceedings. ( 2 ) DEFENDANTS, other than defendant Nos. 3, 13, 14 and 15 were proceeded ex parte in the present proceedings vide order dated 16th May, 1991 as they did not appear despite service. Defendants 3, 13,14 and 15 filed a joint written statement taking a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present proceedings. On merits, it has been contended that the defendants have neither demonstrated inside the premises of the Plaintiff Bank nor have interfered with the ingress and egress of any person. The plaintiff Bank filed replication controverting the pleas taken in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the plaint. ( 3 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 21. 8. 1989:- 1. The plaintiff Bank filed replication controverting the pleas taken in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the plaint. ( 3 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 21. 8. 1989:- 1. Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and suit filed by a duly authorised person? 2. Whether the defendants had the right to resort to Dharna and demonstration? If so, what is the extent of that right. 3. Whether the defendants had indulged in illegal activities raising foul and filthy slogans? If so, to what effect? 4. Whether the defendants cannot hold demonstration even after closing hours? 5. Relief. ( 4 ) HOWEVER the above said defendants too did not appear on subsequent dates of hearing and they too were proceeded ex parte in the present proceedings vide order dated 12th May, 1993 and the plaintiff was directed to adduce evidence by way of affidavits. The plaintiff has filed the affidavits of Sh. Satbir Singh and Sh. Avtar Singh, Officers of the Plaintiff Bank by way of evidence. Both the above mentioned witnesses, in their affidavits, filed by them, by way of evidence, have fully supported the case of the plaintiff Bank and their evidence has gone on record unrebutted and unchallenged. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On a consideration of the averments made in the plaint, documents/material on record and the facts disclosed by Sh. Satbir Singh, Manager (Personnel) and by Sh. Avtar Singh, Sr. Manager of the plaintiff Bank, in their affidavits filed by them by way of evidence which have gone on record unrebutted and unchallenged, which I see no reason to disbelieve, it is established that the plaintiff Bank after the receipt of communication dated the 9th March, 1987 from the defendants whereby the defendants gave a notice to the plaintiff Bank that they would hold dharna and demonstration on March 21,1987 at all the Zonal offices, Regional offices and other Branches of the plaintiff Bank, there is an imminent danger to the property of the plaintiff Bank and physical welfare of the executive officers, clients and customers of the plaintiff Bank. It is also established that the defendants have no right or justification whatsoever to cause any hindrance in the normal functioning of the Bank by using force staging, demonstrations, dharnas, gherao and/or by stopping ingress and egress to the premises of the Plaintiff Bank situated in the Union territory of Delhi. ( 6 ) THOUGH, as already Stated, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte yet in view of the fact that the defendants 3,13,14 and 15, in their joint written statement, filed by them have taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Suit inter-alia on the ground that they have every right to stage demonstrations and to hold peaceful meetings, it is considered proper and appropriate to examine and discuss the above aspect of the submissions of the above said defendants. There can be no denial of this fact that a demonstration or holding a meeting by the employees of an industrial establishment is protected even apart from Section 18 of the trade Unions Act under Article 19 of the Constitution provided it is peaceful and orderly. The Allahabad High Court in case Raj Narayan Vs. State reported as AIR 1961 Allahabad 531, relying on a number of decisions of Supreme Court in case A. K. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras ( AIR 1950 SC 27 ); Charanjit Lal Vs. Union of India ( AIR 1951 SC 41 ); State of Bombay Vs. F. N. Balsara ( AIR 1951 SC 318 ); Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1955 SC 661 ), while upholding the vires of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was held that Article 19 of the Constitution does not grant the right to interfere with the liberty of another citizen and where the conduct ascribed amount to an interference with the liberty of another, the plea that the offender is only exercising a right which was granted to him under the Constitution cannot be accepted. It has been further held by the Allahabad High Court in the above said decision that the State should prohibit the citizens from creating chaos and anarchy and to that extent limit their liberty which must be held to be a reasonable restriction in the interest of the community and even-picking (Dharna) when it is resorted to en masse cannot be peaceful and the same is clearly a coercion exercised by a group upon another group in order to force its will. 6. A In Hunt Vs. Broome reported as (1973) 2 All. E. R. 1035 the scope of protection for picketing (Dharna) was considered and the following passage from Citrine s Trade Union Law was cited:- "similarly, if the manner of the picketing ceases to be peaceful or becomes an obstruction or a nuisance, or endangers the public peace, the picketing will ceases to be lawful. Thus, if a picket commits a private nuisance, as by violently and continually banging on the door, shouting, obstructing Ingress or egress, on otherwise seriously interfering with the enjoyment of the house, or it he commits a public nuisance such as behaving in a manner calculated to cause a breach of the peace, or unreasonably obstructing the highway, his common law right to picket and his right to "attend" under the section will cease and neither will protect him from civil or criminal liability for any of these acts, or for any "watching or besting" "with a view to compel" which he may also have committed. So also if the picketing is carried out in such numbers or otherwise in such a manner as to be likely to intimidate those subject to it, or to obstruct or molest them against their will, it will be unlawful. Any show or threat of violence, or any other unlawful threat likely to create fear in the mind of a reasonable man, will render picketing unlawful, and may make it criminal. Pickets are therefore not entitled in order to compel people to listen to them to obstruct them by deliberately standing in their way or catching hold of their arms. Nor are they entitled to obstruct the passage of vehicles by lying down in the highway in front of them, or otherwise blocking the highway. Pickets are therefore not entitled in order to compel people to listen to them to obstruct them by deliberately standing in their way or catching hold of their arms. Nor are they entitled to obstruct the passage of vehicles by lying down in the highway in front of them, or otherwise blocking the highway. Neither may they continue to pester, i. e. , "molest", those persons who do not wish to listen and who have requested them to desist. It will thus be seen that the right to picket is a very intangible one which is closely limited by the equal right of others to go about their lawful affairs free from obstruction, molestation or intimidation. " 6. B In a N. D. Basu s Law of inductions , 3rd Edition at page 822 it has been stated as follows with regard to the circumstances under which an injunction against picketing (Dharna) may be issued by the Courts:- "while it is often a matter of considerable difficulty to draw the line between what is lawful in this respect and what is unlawful, and while each case must depend very largely upon its own attending facts and circumstances as to whether or not the particular acts complained of are upon one side of the line or the other, it may be stated as a general rule that, while the maintenance of any organised system of picking when conducted in an orderly and peaceful manner, is perfectly lawful and therefore affords no ground for relief by induction, yet where strikers or their sympathisers or other persons acting in concert with them, are combining and conspiring together, by means of force, threat, intimidation or violence, or other means calculated to intimidation, to coerce plaintiff s employees or those who wish to become employees from remaining in or entering his employ, or to prevent plaintiff s customers, or others, who wish to have dealings with him, from so doing, all resulting serious injury to plaintiff s business or in its ultimate ruin, a proper case is presented for the interference of equity and in such cases injunctions should be freely granted and writ should be framed in such form as best to meet the exigencies and requirements of the particular occasion. " 6. " 6. C The High Court of Madras in case M. Ramu and another Vs Government of India and others reported as AIR 1970 Madras 331 have held that clause (a) and (b) of Section 36-AD (1) of the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1968 are not violative of the fundamental rights to freedom of speech expression an peaceful assembly and that the Bank employees have no right to demonstrate outside the Bank premises so as to obstruct or prevent entry of persons into Bank premises. 6. D In the present case, as already stated the defendant who are the Trade Union and are the office bearers of the trade unions, have given a positive threat vide communication dated 9. 3. 87 that they would hold dharnas (picketing) and demonstrations on March 21,1987 at all Zonal Offices, Regional Offices and other Branches of the plaintiff Bank as a result of which the normal functioning of the plaintiff Bank is likely to be disrupted and there is immanent danger and threat to the plaintiff s properties and to the lives of the employees, executives and customers of the plaintiff Bank. 6;e In my opinion the members of a trade union have every right to resort to peaceful agitation by gathering together either outside the Industrial Establishment or inside within the working hours provided the same is peaceful and no violence intimidation or molestation of any kind is involved and the same in no way directly or indirectly interferes with the rights and liberty of other citizens. Freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and to form association does not include right to hold meetings picketing (Dharna) and shout slogans so as to intimidate the willing worker and to prevent the ingress and egress of the customers/clients whom the plaintiff Bank is under an obligation to cater. Banking is a service industry and in a Country like ours where 29% of the population lives below the poverty line the Banking sector can easily be described as highway island and they are paid to render prompt and efficient customer service. The golden rule which can be summed up is that while the management is excepted to abandon arbitrary deal, the workers have to eschew mischievous violence. Discipline has to be preserved at all costs, almost like the apple of the eye. The golden rule which can be summed up is that while the management is excepted to abandon arbitrary deal, the workers have to eschew mischievous violence. Discipline has to be preserved at all costs, almost like the apple of the eye. Crude violence against the top managerial personnel would be swan song of industrial peace and no worker can be allowed to embrace violence as a motto of grievance redressal. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion the suit of the Plaintiff Bank is decreed with costs and a decree for permanent injunction is passed against the defendants, their office bearer, agents and members and any person acting through or for them, restraining them from interfering and/or obstructing the ingress and egress of the employees, customers, executives and any person dealing with the plaintiff directly or indirectly, preventing the plaintiff from carrying out its business in the banking activity at all its Zonal. Regional and Branch Offices in the entire Union territory of Delhi specially at premises bearing No. C-14/16, Atma Ram House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi; 18/90 Connaught Circus, New Delhi, and Branches at H-Block, M-14, Scindia House, G-Block 42, H. 11, B. 45, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and at 48 Janpath, New Delhi and the residential premises bearing No. M- 104, Greater Kailash-l, 9, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi and J-170, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The defendants, their office bearers, agents, members and any person acting through them or for them are further restrained from advocating, instigating and holding demonstrations, meetings, shouting slogams, abuses etc. within a radius of 300 metres of the Zonal Office, Regional Office and all branch offices in C-14/16, Atma Ram House, New Delhi; 18/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and Branches at H. Block, M-14, Scindia House, G Block 42, H. 11, B. 45, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and at 48, Janpath, 1, New Delhi and also at the residential premises bearing No. M-104, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi: F-9, Jangpura Extn. New Delhi and J-170, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.