N.T.P.C. LTD. v. Badarpur Power Engineers & Workers Union

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HON’BLE MR.

JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) %

1. Heard the plaintiff and defendant No.1 through its General Secretary - Shri Om Prakash. He is also the third defendant. He deposed in support of the application seeking dismissal of the Suit and also claims to be authorized by the first defendant – Union.

2. In the present Suit, the plaintiff seeks the following reliefs: - “26. 2009:DHC:5298 CS (OS) 1331/2008 Page 2

(I) Pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, its office bearers, members, associates and agents thereby restraining them from: (A) From staging demonstrations, dharnas, shouting slogans, burning effigies, use of abusive language etc., against the plaintiffs and its officers within its premises and within a radius of 100 meters from the gate no.1,[2] and other entry points to plaintiffs office/premises at Badarpur Thermal Power Station, Badarpur, New Delhi and from NTPC head office at core 6 &7, Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003; (B) Restraining the defendants, their members, servants, associates, etc. from:

I. Obstructing, intimidating or preventing the willing employees, officers of the plaintiffs from having free and unobstructed, peaceful ingress and egress to the office premises of the plaintiffs located at Badarpur Thermal Power Station, Badarpur, New Delhi and NTPC head office at core 6 & 7, Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi;

II. Preventing the officers and employees of the plaintiffs from carrying on their normal functions:

III. Gheraoing the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, General Manager and/or any other officers or employees of the plaintiffs at their offices or at their respective residences.”

3. Defendant No.1 is an Engineers’ and Workers’ Union – one of the registered trade Unions, whose members are employees of the plaintiff. The said Union also claims to be recognized by the plaintiff and is functioning in its premises.

4. The first defendant in its application contends that the present Suit is not maintainable in view of the orders in the previous two suits, filed before this Court. More particularly, the defendant/applicant submits that the decree in Suit No.1925/1993 binds both the parties. The final order of the Court dated 28.03.2005 in CS (OS) 1925/1993, (later transferred to this Court) is in the following terms: - “28.03.2005 Present: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, along with Mr. R.K.Sharma, Manager (HR) of plaintiff No.2 in person. Defendant no.2 in person for himself as well as for defendant no.1 Union. CS (OS) 1331/2008 Page 3 Defendant no.4 in person. Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of plaintiffs. It is stated by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that defendant no.2, General Secretary of the Union, that in Suit No.614/94 was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 10.10.2002 and defendants have agreed not to hold any demonstration within a radius of 50 meters from gate no.4 of the plant. Let the statement of parties may be recorded. Statement of Sh. O.P. Gupta, General Secretary of defendant no.1 Union and Mr. R.K. Sharma of the plaintiff no.2 and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the plaintiffs have been recorded separately today. In view of the statements, the defendants, the defendant no.1 Union is restrained from holding any demonstration within a radius of 50 meters from gate no.4 of Badarpur Thermal Power Station. This order, however, shall not hamper the legitimate Trade Union activities of defendant no.1 beyond the radius of 50 meters from gate no.4. The suit is disposed of accordingly. The parties shall be bound by the undertaking given by them. File be consigned to Record Room.”

5. It is contended that in the circumstances, the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from protesting or holding dharna outside Gate No.1. The applicant/defendant contended in addition that in any event, protests and dharnas are being conducted outside Gate No.1, in addition to complying with the permanent injunction granted by the Court on 28.03.2005.

6. During the course of hearing, Mr. Om Prakash, third defendant and also the General Secretary of the first defendant Union submits that since the order dated 28.3.2005 has become final, the said defendant Nos.1,2&3 would have no objection if statement is recorded that they would not hold demonstration, dharna or protests within the radius of 50 meters from Gate Nos.1&2.

7. In view of the submissions made and statement on behalf of the first three defendants, a permanent injunction is issued against the defendant Nos.1-3 or the office bearers of Defendant No.1 from staging the demonstrations, dharnas or doing anything or shouting slogans etc. within CS (OS) 1331/2008 Page 4 the radius of 50 meters from Gate No.1&2 of the Thermal Power Station at Badarpur. Nothing survives as against the defendant Nos.4-17, as they are the current office bearers.