G. Jayachandran JUDGMENT
Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.
(The case has been heard through video conference)
1. Against the concurrent findings of the Courts below granting permanent injunction, the aggrieved defendant has filed the present second appeal.
2. The plaintiff is the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited located within the campus of Madras Atomic Power Station at Kalpakkam. It is a Government of India enterprises. The defendant is the Employees Union in the plaintiff's establishment.
3. The plaint averment is that, the plaintiff's organisation is a public sector undertaking under the Department of Atomic Energy. It is engaged in production of electric power to cater the needs of Southern states of India. Considering the sensitivity of the plaintiff's organisation, the Government of Tamil Nadu has notified in the gazette on 03/11/1995 as prohibited area, the entire area where the plaintiff establishment is located. Thereby the access to general public is restricted.
4. In the Joint Consultative Council Meeting held at Mumbai on 26/08/1995, understanding arrived among the Management and the Unions that the Employee's Union will not conduct any demonstration, slogan shouting, union meeting within 1.6 Kms of the plant premises.
5. Contrary to the agreement, whenever the Union wants to agitate against the Management, the members of the defendant Union used to assemble near the west gate and also in front of the Administration Building Portico and other prohibited area raise slogans, conduct gate meetings, prevent loyal employees from ingress and egress to the plant.
6. On 02/04/2002 in one such gate meeting the crew members of the organisation were badly affected. It caused hardship for the other employees to have ingress and egress to the plant. Being a atomic power plant, it runs round the clock with three shifts. The conduct of the defendant Union members jeopardise the safety and security of the plant.
7. Hence, suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its office bearers, members, agents and any other persons acting on their behalf and their behest, conducting any demonstration, gherao, raising slogans inside the premises or within the prohibited area and also within the 100 meters distance from Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) main gate (South gate), conducting sit in strike and preventing other shift workers from attending to their shift work within the plant and prohibited area and also within the 100 meters distance from CISF main gate (South gate), interfering with the ingress or egress of the employees, officers, customers, guests of the plaintiff to and from the power station in any manner.
8. In their written statement, the defendant Union denied the plaint averments. It denied the existence of any agreement in Joint Consultative Meeting or a Code of Discipline between the plaintiff's Management and the defendant Union as averred in the plaint. The maintainability of the suit questioned on the ground that the subject matter of the suit is an industrial dispute. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was claimed that the Union has right to agitate in lawful manner after giving statutory notice for strike. Their right to strike cannot be washed away. The south gate is 4 Km away from the operating island which is the important zone containing nuclear installation. The defendants never indulged in any unlawful activities till date. The gate meetings are conducted in a lawful manner without causing any inconvenience to anybody. Being a vexatious litigation the suit has to dismissed.
9. The Trial Court after considering the rival pleadings had framed the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed?
2) What other relief?
10. One witness on each side and 9 exhibits on t........