S. K. PANDE, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals under Section 96, Civil procedure Code are directed against the judgment-decree dated August 17, 1994, passed by I ADJ, Shahdol in C. S. No. 1 1-A/89. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF Shahdol Pipe Works is a registered partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of reinforcement cement, concrete (RCC), hume pipes. Plaintiff M. K. Rathore is a truck owner and is engaged in the business of transporting goods and materials. Defendant Zila Laghu Udyog Kamgar Sangh is claimed to be a registered trade union, registered under the Trade Unions Act. It is claimed that this union represents the employees working in hume pipe factory of plaintiff. Defendant Mani Lal Jain and others claimed to be the President, office bearers and members of the trade union Zila Laghu Udyog kamgar Sangh. On a call by the defendant trade union, the workers went on strike. They collected at the main gate of the factory on July 9, 1989 and obstructed the ingress of Che persons in the factory premises who were ready and willing to come and do their work. To this, the defendants used criminal force in obstructing the persons and threatened them with dire consequences, in case they entered into the factory premises for doing their normal work. The members of the trade union and its supporters collected themselves by committing criminal trespass in or about the main gate of the factory and made pickets there at. They did not allow the persons to enter and did not allow the movement of vehicles and persons from inside the factory. Armed with lathies, they used criminal force and intimidated the persons with dire consequences. The aforesaid illegal and unauthorized activities amounting to offences on the part of trade union, office-bearers, i. e. , workers, supporters, continued from July 9, 1989 to July 18, 1989, resulting in cessation of production in the factory. The production of the factory was severely curtailed. It resulted into loss of Rs. 22,500 to the plaintiff Shahdol Pipe works. The truck of plaintiff M. K. Rathore was not permitted by the trade union workers : to move out from the factory; and only with the police assistance was removed. Plaintiff M. K. Rathore suffered a loss of Rs. 3,200. It resulted into loss of Rs. 22,500 to the plaintiff Shahdol Pipe works. The truck of plaintiff M. K. Rathore was not permitted by the trade union workers : to move out from the factory; and only with the police assistance was removed. Plaintiff M. K. Rathore suffered a loss of Rs. 3,200. Accordingly, plaintiffs Shahdol Pipe Works, m. K. Rathore instituted C. S. No. 11-A/891 before the IADJ, Shahdol seeking perpetual injunction restraining the trade union office bearers-supporters from instigating and/or resorting to illegal strike, either directly or through their members, sympathizers and 1 supported in the hume pipe factory. Further, a decree for recovery of damages Rs. 22,500 and rs. 3,200 respectively was also prayed. The suit aforesaid has been resisted by the defendant trade Union office bearers, members and 2 supporters stating inter alia, since the grievance was not redressed, serving the requisite notice (Exhibit D-7), they proceeded on strike and resortedto agitation by peaceful means. The gate of the factory was locked by 2 the factory owners and they did not allow the workers to enter into the premises to resume normal duties. Instead they filed the suit to harass the trade union office bearers and workers. 3 ( 3 ) THE Court below vide impugned judgment dated August 17, 1994 in C. S. No. 11-A/89 held that the defendant trade union office bearers, members, supporters, sympathisers on July 9, 1989 collected at the main gate of the factory and obstructed the ingress of the persons in the factory premises who wore ready and willing to work. These persons committed criminal trespass in or about the main gate of the factory and made pickets there at. They did not allow the persons to enter the factory nor did they allow the movements of vehicles and persons from inside the factory. However, defendant trade union office bearers, members and sympathizers cannot be held liable for damages, said to have been caused to plaintiffs Shahdol Pipe Works and M. K. Rathore. Accordingly, dismissing the suit for recovery of damages, allowed the prayer of perpetual injunction by directing the defendant trade union office bearers, members, sympathisers to desist from instigating or resorting, to illegal strike either directly or through their members, sympathisers and supporters in the hume pipe factory of plaintiff shahdol Pipe Works. Accordingly, dismissing the suit for recovery of damages, allowed the prayer of perpetual injunction by directing the defendant trade union office bearers, members, sympathisers to desist from instigating or resorting, to illegal strike either directly or through their members, sympathisers and supporters in the hume pipe factory of plaintiff shahdol Pipe Works. Being aggrieved with the rejection of claim for recovery of damages, plaintiffs Shahdol Pipe Works, M. K. Rathore have preferred F. A. No. 374/1994 on the ground that the Court below erroneously held that the defendant trade union office bearers, members, sympathizers, supporters are protected under Section 18 of the Trade Unions act and are not liable to pay the damages. Defendant trade union office bearers, members have preferred F. A. No. 349/1994 on the ground that the Court below erred in issuing perpetual injunction. Activities of the workers during the relevant period were not similar to the acts which may be classified as criminal force and criminal intimidation. ( 4 ) THE allegation in plaint were to the effect that the defendant trade union gave a call for the strike. On July 9, 1989, members of defendant trade union collected at the main gate of the factory and obstructed the ingress of persons in the factory premises who were ready and willing to do their work. These persons collected themselves by committing trespass in or about the main gate and made picketing there at. They did not allow the persons to enter the factory nor did they allow the movement of vehicles and persons from inside the factory. Leeladhar Khodiar (P. W. 1), M. K. Rathore (P. W. 2) and Bhagwan Lal Khodiar (P. W. 3)have stated that on July 9, 1989, the workers of the defendant trade union collected themselves at the main gate of the factory and did not allow the workers to enter into the factory premises. The truck of M. K. Rathore was also not allowed to take out from the premises. The strike continued during the period July 9, 1989 to July 18, 1989. These witnesses have stated that defendent trade union office bearers, members, sympathisers committed criminal trespass in or about the main gate and made picketing there at. They did not allow the persons to enter the factory, nor did they allow the movement of vehicles and persons from inside the factory. These witnesses have stated that defendent trade union office bearers, members, sympathisers committed criminal trespass in or about the main gate and made picketing there at. They did not allow the persons to enter the factory, nor did they allow the movement of vehicles and persons from inside the factory. A. G. Pillai (D. W. 1) has stated that the trade union after serving the notice (Exhibit D-7) resorted to peaceful administration to press the demands of its workers. The act of criminal intimidation, picketing was never done during the period july 9, 1989 to July 18, 1989. Instead the gate of the factory was locked by its management. The Court below disbelieving the aforesaid statement of A. G. Pillai (D. W. 1) accepted statements of Leeladhar Khodiar (P. W. 1), m. K. Rathore (P. W. 2) and Bhagwan Lal khodiar (P. W. 3 ). The findings to this effect cannot be said to be illegal or improper. Referring to the decision of the Bombay High court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Petroleum Employees Union, 2001-11-llj-81, it has been contended that a civil suit to restrain the employees of a trade union from going on a strike irrespective of whether the proposed strike was legal or illegal under a special statute could not be brought in a civil Court. The judgment aforesaid was in relation to Sections 17, 18 of the Industrial disputes Act. Decidedly, a Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit to restrain the employees from going on a strike irrespective of whether the proposed strike was legal or illegal under a special statute. However to restrain the trade union and its activities from inciting acts of violation, intimidation and coercion a suit for injunction would lie. ( 5 ) IN M. P. Colliery Workers Federation, chirmiri v. United Collieries Ltd. , Calcutta, 1972 MPLJ 78 , it has been observed:"we are not here concerned with the question whether the strike in this particular case was justified or not. All that the plaintiff company wants is the prevention by a temporary injunction of acts of violence, intimidation and coercion by the trade union officials, which has not only paralysed the normal working of its mines but has created terror, alarm and unrest among the workers and the members of its staff. All that the plaintiff company wants is the prevention by a temporary injunction of acts of violence, intimidation and coercion by the trade union officials, which has not only paralysed the normal working of its mines but has created terror, alarm and unrest among the workers and the members of its staff. From this point of view, the Court undoubtedly has the power to grant a temporary injunction restraining the commission of such acts. Injunction may be issued by a Court against: uttering words which have the effect of force and incite acts of violence. [staub v. City of Baxley, (1957) 355 US 313 and Near v. Minnesota, (1930) 283 US 697]. " ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Court below had jurisdiction to proceed with the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant trade union office bearers, members, sympathisers from resorting to illegal means during the strike either directly or through their members, sympathisers and supporters in the hume pipe factory of plaintiff Shahdol pipe Works. Registered trade union office bearers, members are immuned from liability of any tortuous act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. Section 18, the trade Unions Act, 1926 is as under: -immunity from civil suit in certain cases- (1) No suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any civil suit against any registered Trade Union or any (officebearer) 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 persons to break a contract of employment or that it is in interference with the trade, business or employment of some of persons or with the right of some other persons 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 tortuous 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. " ( 7 ) IT is admitted that defendant trade union is a registered trade union and after giving the requisite notice (Exhibit D-7), went on strike. Therefore, none of the defendants shall be held liable for any tortuous act done in contemplation or furtherance of the trade dispute aforesaid. Even otherwise, from the statements or Leeladhar Knodiar (P. W. 1), m. K. Rathore (P. W. 2) and Bhagwan Lal khodiar (P. W. 3), it cannot be said that by acts of strike aforesaid, loss enumerated in Paras 6 and 7 of the plaint was caused by the defendant trade union office bearers, members and sympathisers. Accordingly, the Court' below rightly rejected the claim for recovery of damages as claimed by plaintiffs Shahdol Pipe works and M. K. Rathore. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, affirming the judgment-decree passed by Court below, these appeals fail and are dismissed. Parties to bear their costs. Counsel fee as per rule or certificate (whichever is less ). .