MUKUL MUDGAL, J (ORAL) ( 1 ). THIS is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking an ad-interim order of temporary injunction, restraining the defendant no. 1, its office bearers including the defendant No. 2, members, sympathizers and associates from resorting to strike in any manner, rallies, dharnas, demonstrations, gherao in any manner pursuant to what according to the plaintiff are threats emanating from the defendants letters dated 15th July, 2004 and 28th July, 2004 including the ingress and egress of officers, staff and public in and around 500 meters of the premises of the plaintiff at Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi or Kidwai Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi or any other office premises of the plaintiff at Delhi/new Delhi or in or in front of the residential premises of its officers. ( 2 ). THE genesis of the dispute arising in this suit is as follows:- A notice dated 15th July, 2004 has been issued by Sanchar Nigam Executives Association (India), i. e. , the defendant No. 1 which refers to various grievances detailed in the said notice, concerning Delhi Circle executives. Inter alia the grievance raised is about the goonda element in Northern Telecom Region (NTR) and the delay in taking any action to stop the intimidation of the officers by such subordinate staff. Due to inaction on the part of the management, a lunch hour demonstration was proposed on 25th July, 2004 and a day long `dharna at the office of the Chief General Manager, Northern telecom Region on 4th August, 2004. ( 3 ). The plaint is founded on the grievance that such actions threatened in the said notice are uncalled for and illegal and would stall the functioning of the plaintiff organization and violence and other objectionable activities like obstruction of ingress and egress of officers of officers and staff including the use of abusive and filthy language against the officers/staff and their family members may be resorted to. It has also been stated that the mob action may lead to a mis-happening due to the provocation of the defendants, its office bearers, members and staff. The said impugned actions are also said to have an adverse effect on the smooth functioning of the plaintiff organization as well as the general public. ( 4 ). PARTIES have relied upon various judgments in support of their case. The said impugned actions are also said to have an adverse effect on the smooth functioning of the plaintiff organization as well as the general public. ( 4 ). PARTIES have relied upon various judgments in support of their case. However, since I am dealing with the relevant interlocutory application for interim injunction, I am only dealing with the judgments of the hon ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble supreme Court in T. K. Rangarajan Vs Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors. reported as 2003 (6) SCALE @ P. 84 to contend that the employees have no fundamental or statutory right to resort to strike. He has also relied upon the Hon ble supreme Court s judgment in Railway Board, New Delhi and anr. Vs Niranjan Singh reported as AIR 1969 SC 966 . ( 5 ). THE learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon further judgments. But since this is the interlocutory issue, I have only considered the relevant case-law of the Supreme Court. The judgment, relied upon by the defendants counsel is the judgment of Hon ble supreme Court in Punjab National Bank Ltd. , Vs All India punjab National Bank Employees Federation and Another reported as AIR 1960 SC (V 47 C 28 ). The issue which arose in the said judgment related to the pen down strike and its effects. The said judgment of the Hon ble Supreme court held as follows:- " (54) It has been strenuously urged before us that in the case of a Bank which is a credit institution a pendown strike, if continued for a long period, is likely to affect prejudicially the credit of the Bank. It is also pointed out that, even in regard to industrial concerns, if strikers enter the premises of the factory and sit around the plant in large numbers, in the heat of the moment unfortunate and ugly incidents are likely to happen, and so such pendown or sitdown strikes should be positively discouraged. We are prepared to concede that in the surcharged atmosphere which generally accompanies strikes and when passions are aroused, a large scale and continuous pendown strike may lead to untoward consequences. But, on the other hand, even in the case of such a strike, the employer is not without a remedy. We are prepared to concede that in the surcharged atmosphere which generally accompanies strikes and when passions are aroused, a large scale and continuous pendown strike may lead to untoward consequences. But, on the other hand, even in the case of such a strike, the employer is not without a remedy. He may bar the entry of the strikers within the premises by adopting effective and legitimate methods in that behalf as in fact the Bank did in the present case from April 23. He may call upon the employees to vacate, and, on their refusal to do so, take due steps to suspend them from employment, proceed to hold proper enquiries according to the standing orders, and pass proper orders against them subject to the relevant provisions of the Act. If the Bank had been properly advised to adopt such a course, many of the difficulties which it had to face in the present proceedings would not probably have arisen. Therefore, we do not think that the general hypothetical consideration that pendown strikes may in some cases lead to rowdy demonstrations or result in disturbances or violence or shake the credit of the Bank would justify the conclusion that even if the strikers are peaceful and non-violent and have done nothing more than occupying their seats during office hours, their participation in the strike would by itself disqualify them from claiming reinstatement. " ( 6 ). THE judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in niranjan Singh s case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, Shri Sinha arises in respect of the challenge to order of removal based on a circular of the Railways and the judgment reads as follows:- "it has been brought to notice that in a number of cases railway employees have held meetings inside railway premises such as inside workshops, inside stores depots and within office compounds. It may be pointed out that this practice is extremely objectionable and has to be stopped forthwith. All staff may be warned that if any one of them is found organising or attending a meeting inside railway premises or at places of work, he will render himself liable to severe disciplinary action as such action or his part will amount to misconduct arising out of violation of administrative instructions. All staff may be warned that if any one of them is found organising or attending a meeting inside railway premises or at places of work, he will render himself liable to severe disciplinary action as such action or his part will amount to misconduct arising out of violation of administrative instructions. Meetings of workers can be held on open grounds away from places of work with the permission of the railway authorities concerned if such open grounds fall within railway boundary. You are to note these instructions very carefully and to ensure their strict compliance in future. Please acknowledge receipt. " IN the context of the challenge to the aforesaid circular, the relevant portion of the judgment in niranjan Singh s case (supra) reads as follows:- "the fact that the citizens of this country have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble peaceably and freedom to form associations or unions does not mean that they can exercise those freedoms in whatever place they please the exercise of those freedoms will come to an end as soon as the right of someone else to hold his property intervenes. " ( 7 ). IT was contended that the aforesaid judgment thus curtails the right of the defendants from taking union action in respect of the grievances raised in the premises of the plaintiff. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendants, has contended that the aforesaid judgment was in respect of the validity of the circular and is distinguishable for the reason that there is no such circular in the present case. The three Hon ble Judges judgment in Punjab national Bank s case (supra) fully holds the field. It was contended that while PNB s case (supra) held the field being an earlier judgment of 3 Hon ble Judges of 1960, even if this Court came to the conclusion that niranjan Singh s judgment (supra) wasnot distinguishable, the judgment applicable was PNB s judgment (supra) as Niranjan Singh s judgment (supra) though of 3 Hon ble Judges had not noticed the earlier judgment in PNB s case (supra ). He has also submitted that the judgment in T. K. Rangarajan s case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff was a judgment of two Hon ble Judges of the Supreme Court and had not noticed the judgment of the three Hon ble Judges in Niranjan Singh s case (surpa) and this Court was, therefore, bound by the pronouncement of the three hon ble Judges and not of the two Hon ble Judges. He further submitted that the action was only to be held in the compound of Kidwai Bhawan which is about 2000 sq. yards and not in the building proper as wrongly alleged in the plaint, thereby ruling out all apprehensions expressed in the plaint. I am also satisfied there is merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the defendants. Thus strike per se is not forbidden as per niranjan Singh s judgment which permits legitimate restrictions on strikers rights such as those by way of circular introduced in Niranjan Singh s case (supra) which has admittedly not been done in the present case. I am also bound to follow the earlier 3 Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank s case (supra ). However, it has to be noted that the strike in any manner should not interfere with the smooth working and impede the ingress and egress of the plaintiff organization and its work should not suffer. Mr. Krishnan has further submitted that contrary to the claim preferred in the plaint, the defendants, who are an association of responsible middle level executive were only seeking to resort to action of lunch hour demonstration in Kidwai Bhawan building and nowhere else which has no public dealing. Accordingly, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be fully met and the discipline will be fully preserved if the defendant No. 1, its office bearers including the defendant No. 2, members, sympathizers and associates are restrained from resorting to the threatened action impugned in this suit except in accordance with the terms of this order. However, the demonstration and the dharna shall be entirely peaceful and shall not in any manner bar or impede the ingress and egress of officers, staff and visitors to Kidwai Bhawan, janpath, New Delhi and such action of the defendants should not disturb the functioning of the plaintiff. However, the demonstration and the dharna shall be entirely peaceful and shall not in any manner bar or impede the ingress and egress of officers, staff and visitors to Kidwai Bhawan, janpath, New Delhi and such action of the defendants should not disturb the functioning of the plaintiff. However, it is also made clear that the lunch hour demonstration will not be held inside the Kidwai Bhawan building but only outside the building but in the compound comprising of 2000 sq. meters. Accordingly, the application is allowed partially with the aforesaid restrictions imposed on the defendants action of lunch hour demonstration and dharna. ( 8 ). APPLICATION stands disposed of accordingly. CS (OS) No. 814/04 Lit the matter on 8th March, 2005.