ORDER : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Matter has been posted today on urgent mentioning on account of exigency arisen on the declaration of strike by the respondent Association of the petitioner Bank from 28.03.2016 to 31.03.2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Bank submits that Officers and Staff of the petitioner Bank in this State and many other States, have been apparently aggrieved by the statement made by the Hon'ble Finance Minister in his Budget speech on reducing the share holding of Government of India below 51% of the petitioner Bank. They have felt a sense of insecurity and apprehension that their service conditions and retention in service may be adversely affected. Petitioner Bank is categorized as "other public sector Bank" by the Reserve Bank of India pursuant to the IDBI Repeal Act. President of India is the Promoter of the petitioner Bank through the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Government of India holds more than 51% of the equity share capital of the petitioner Bank. It is the single largest shareholder of the petitioner Bank holding 81.16% equity in the share capital of the Bank. Petitioner has suffered net loss of Rs. 1,929 crores during the last financial year in the first three quarter and net loss of December quarter alone is Rs. 2,184 crores. Bank is facing dire financial crisis and not only has to increase its capital base in order to remain competitive, but also in order to meet the regulatory requirements of law. The period of call of strike is closing of the financial year. Huge financial transactions are undertaken at the closing of the financial year by not only the private customers, but also by the State Government and its instrumentality. Functions of the Bank would come to a grinding halt, if a restraint order is not passed upon the respondent Association from indulging in strike and preventing normal banking activity. It is submitted that such a course is not only unlawful under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as Manager and Staff of the Bank are not workmen, but also in teeth of the service condition under which, they function under the petitioner Bank. Reliance has also been placed upon section 36AD of Part – IIB of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which reads as under: Part IIB Prohibition of Certain Activities in Relation to Banking Companies 36AD. Reliance has also been placed upon section 36AD of Part – IIB of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which reads as under: Part IIB Prohibition of Certain Activities in Relation to Banking Companies 36AD. Punishments for certain activities in relation to banking companies. - (1) No person shall - (a) obstruct any person from lawfully entering or leaving any office or place of business of a banking company or from carrying on any business there, or (b) hold, within the office or place of business of any banking company, any demonstration which is violent or which prevents, or is calculated to prevent, the transaction of normal business by the banking company, or (c) act in any manner calculated to undermine the confidence of the depositors in the banking company. (2) Whoever contravenes any provision of sub-section (1) without any reasonable excuse shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. (3) For the purposes of this section "banking company" includes the Reserve Bank, the Exim bank, (the Reconstruction Bank) (the National Housing Bank), the National Bank, (the Small Industries bank), the State Bank of India, a corresponding new bank, a regional rural bank and a subsidiary bank." 3. It is submitted that on such exigency arisen across the country, the petitioner bank has been compelled to seek emergent relief in the nature of restraint order upon the respondent Associations from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 16332/2016 vide order dated 24.03.2016 (Annexure- 2), also before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CS(OS) 145/2016 vide order dated 22.03.2016, as also before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Suit (L) No. 291/2016 vide order dated 23.03.2016 (Annexure-4) passed in similar circumstances. It is submitted that the restraint order in the manner passed by the Hon'ble Courts may also be issued upon the respondent Association to prevent them from obstructing normal functioning of the office and other establishment of the petitioner Bank and at the same time, preventing them from carrying out activities which obstruct the customers or investors or any other willing employee of the Bank and its daily normal functioning. 4. Let notice be issued upon the respondents under Registered cover with A/D, for which requisites be filed by tomorrow. 4. Let notice be issued upon the respondents under Registered cover with A/D, for which requisites be filed by tomorrow. Petitioner shall also take steps for personal service of notice upon the respondent Association, for which requisites if required, may be also filed by tomorrow. Office to issue notice to be served on the respondent Association by 31.03.2016 through the petitioner. Let such personal service of notice be effected and affidavit to that effect be filed within two weeks thereafter by the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the material facts pleaded and gone through the interim order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Delhi and Bombay. The notice to go on strike at such a crucial period of closing of the financial year from 28.03.2016 i.e. today till 31.03.2016, resorted to by the respondent Association for whatever justification that they may have, is seriously going to affect not only the interest of the petitioner Bank, but the individual private customers and other institutional customer like the State Government. It would also have the cascading effect on the business transacted through the petitioner Bank throughout the State. There is a prima face case in favour of the petitioner Bank for a restraint order to be issued upon the respondent Association. Therefore, a restrained order in the nature indicated hereunder is being passed. It would also have the cascading effect on the business transacted through the petitioner Bank throughout the State. There is a prima face case in favour of the petitioner Bank for a restraint order to be issued upon the respondent Association. Therefore, a restrained order in the nature indicated hereunder is being passed. "(a) The respondents and each of them by themselves or by their men, representatives, associates, aids, agents, assigns, nominees, supporters and members are restrained by an order of stay: (i) Committing any acts that would obstruct the normal functioning at the office and other establishments of the petitioner-Bank or in any of its branches and/or office in Jharkhand in any manner whatsoever; (ii) Threatening or intimidating, abusing gheraoing and/or wrongfully confining any officer or member of the supervisor staff or any other employees and/or customers of the petitioner-Bank in Jharkhand; (iii) Holding any meeting or demonstration or squatting in the premises of the petitioner-Bank, or organising unlawful assemblies in or around the offices/and/or branch premises of the petitioner-Bank or within 25 meters thereof without previous permission of the petitioner-Bank in writing; (iv) Shouting slogans within a distance of 25 meters from the offices and/or branch premises of the petitioner-Bank or using loud speakers and/or megaphones/loud hailers within the aforesaid said distance of 25 meters; (v) Displaying and/or pasting and/or painting any posters or slogans within the office or establishment or any part thereof (except on the Notice Board of the Association) or on the outside walls, gates, gate posts or upon any part of the property of the petitioner-Bank or in or upon any of the offices or the branches of the petitioner-Bank including the outside walls, gates, gate-posts, or upon any part of the property or compound of the offices or branches or otherwise damaging, destroying, defacing, mutilating, disfiguring or spoiling the property of the petitioner-Bank in any manner whatsoever; (vi) Obstructing any customer or investor or constituent or any willing employees of the petitioner-Bank Qua dealing with the Bank; (vii) obstructing ingress to or egress from the office or branch premises of the petitioner-Bank in Jharkhand. (viii) obstructing in any manner whatsoever, the free movement of the vehicles or their entry and exit to an from the office premises of the petitioner-Bank or other establishments, under the control of the petitioner-Bank including the branches; (b) It is however clarified that the stay as granted in sub-clauses (iii) of clause (a) above would not include any meeting of the respondent associations within the office of the Union. However, while holding such a meeting, the respondents shall ensure that they shall not indulge in shouting slogans, and in disrupting the functioning of the Bank. (c) The respondent-Associations may meet the Managing Director and CEO of the petitioner-Bank for making a representation if required. However, the size of the delegation of the respondents shall be one member per Association, but the size of the delegation in total shall not be more than four members. (d) The parties are at liberty to apply for further ad-interim reliefs if so required." 6. List the case after three weeks on 27.04.2016. 7. Let copy of the order be given to learned counsel for the petitioner during course of the day.