Dismissed

All India Ponds Employees v. M/S. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

Madras HC11 Jun 2018OSA/333/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal filed by employees against an interlocutory order granting an absolute injunction restraining them from interfering with the respondent employer's ingress and egress or holding demonstrations at its premises. The court affirmed that while the right to peaceful demonstration is vested, such demonstrations cannot affect the employer's rights or occur before the o

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of holding that appellants shall not interfere with the respondent's ingress and egress and there shall be no demonstration in front of the office premises.

All India Ponds Employees Vs M/S. Hindustan Unilever… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.06.2018

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

O.S.A.No.333 of 2017

¶6

1.All India Ponds Employees Nalasangam, No.577, Munivel Street, Kakkanji Nagar, Vysarpadi, Chennai - 39. 2.K.J.Mohan Kumar, Chairman, All India Ponds Employees Nalasangam, No.13, Raju Street, West Mambalam, Chennai - 33. 3.J.C.Sebastian, General Secretary, All India Ponds Employees Nalasangam, No.2/119, 3rd Street, Netaji Nagar, Lakshmi Nagar, West Mudichur, Mannivakkam, Kanchipuram - 600 048. .. Appellants Vs M/s.Hindustan Unilever Limited rep. by its Manager and Power of Attorney Agent/Authorised Signatory Saif Jamali .. Respondent

¶7

Appeal preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules r/w Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order and decretal order dated 09.08.2017 made in O.A.No.129 of 2016 in C.S.No.116 of 2016.

¶8

For Appellants .. Mr.S.Sridhar For Respondent .. Mr.Krishna Srinivasan for M/s.Ramalingam and Associates

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

¶12

The appellants are the defendants in the suit. The respondent being the plaintiff filed a suit for bare injunction. Pending the suit, injunction was sought for restraining the appellants from interfering with the ingress and egress, not to prevent the respondent from doing his business and to indulge in unlawful demonstration before the office premises. Upon hearing the submissions of the parties, interim injunction granted earlier was made absolute and accordingly, the said application was allowed. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.

¶13

2.Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the respondent has acted contrary to the undertaking given while giving voluntary resignation. The benefits of the Trust have not been extended to the appellants who are the retired employees pursuant to the implementation of voluntary retirement scheme. Right to conduct demonstration is a vested one and therefore the same cannot be denied. On a query, learned counsel would fairly submit that the ingress and egress to the working place of the respondent will never be disturbed and no demonstration would take place in front of the office premises. Learned counsel would further submit that the appellants be permitted to have demonstration after getting permission from the competent authority including the police personnel. Incidentally, it is submitted that the respondent may be directed to extend atleast medical facilities as agreed upon under the voluntary retirement scheme.

¶14

3.By way of reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the issue involved on the entitlement is no longer res integra as decided already by the Division Bench in O.S.A.No.181 of 2004 dated 18.08.2008. While demonstration can be adopted, the same cannot be permitted to affect the rights of the respondent. The appellants have already initiated action under the Payment of Wages Act, which is still pending consideration. Hence there is no interference required on the findings rendered by the learned single Judge while granting the order of injunction.

¶15

4.As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, right to peaceful demonstration can never be prevented. However, such a demonstration cannot be construed to mean to affect the rights of the employer in doing its own legal and lawful activities. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has fairly submitted that the ingress and egress to the work place of the respondent will not be prevented and

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

there will not be any demonstration in front of the office premises. The said statement stands recorded. Thus the only other issue is with respect to the manner in which the demonstration is to be conducted. This, we are of the view, cannot be qualified by us. Once it is held that right to demonstration is something which is vested, the manner in which it has to be done is lawful or not is something for the authorities to decide. As long as the same is permissible in law, the appellants are at liberty to do so without affecting the rights of the respondent. However, such a demonstration can only be held after getting appropriate permission from the authorities concerned.

¶18

5.With the abovesaid observation, this appeal stands disposed of, making it clear that the appellants shall not interfere with the ingress and egress of the respondent to reach the office premises and there shall not be any demonstration also in front of the office premises. However, the appellants can always have the lawful demonstration in accordance with law. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi
To
1.The Sub Assistant Registrar,
Original Side, High Court, Madras.

¶20

+1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate sr.no.36121 +1cc to M/s.Ramalingam and Associates, Advocate sr.no.36664

¶21

O.S.A.No.333 of 2017

¶22

gjii(co) nr 25/06/2018

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

All India Ponds Employees v. M/S. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All India Ponds Employees v. M/S. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Adani Wilmar Ltd. Vs a.S.Hansraj

M/S. Sterling Garden & Founda Vs Hyder Ali

Harikrishnan S/O. Subramani Vs the Chairman Tamil Nadu

Mr.a.S.Rathanasabapathy Vs P.Madan Mohan

Janabai Bakthavatchalam Vs M.Shankar Rao

M/S Ponds India Ltd. Vs the Asst Commissioner of