Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: ..1..
MHCC010050252018 Presented on : 17/04/2018
Registered on : 20/04/2018
Decided on : 20/09/2022
Duration : 04 Y 05 M 04 D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
EXHIBIT NO.
S. C. SUIT NO.1162 OF 2018
Dalamal House Commercial complex CHS.
A Society registered under the Maharashtra Co
operative Societies Act, 1960, having their office at
206, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai
400 021, through their Secretary Shri. Gopal
Maheshwari
]
]
]
]
]
] …Plaintiff
V/s.
1 Dashing Aamdar Ram Kadam Kamgar Union
(Registered)
]
2 Shri. Ram Kadam, the President ]
3 Shri. Chandrakant Malkar, Vice President ]
4 Shri. Sunil Metkar, Vice President ]
5 Shri. Sandeep Khopkar, General Secretary ]
6 Shri. Santosh Sawant, Executive ]
All having their main office at Sharavan House,
Behind R. City Mall, Ghatkopar (West),
Mumbai – 400 086.
]
]
] …Defendants
Appearance :
Ld. Adv. Nitin Vhatkar for plaintiff.
None for defendants. (Exparte)
-- 1 of 8 --
..2..
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHAIKH AKBAR SHAIKH JAFAR
COURT ROOM NO.03
DATE : 20/09/2022.
J U D G M E N T
1 Instant suit is filed by Dalamal House Commercial complex
CHS., against it's the security personals of the building i.e. watchmen
and security staff, contending that they have formed a union and
appeared in the premises of the building obstruct daily affairs and abuses
badly to the supervisor of the plaintiff namely Sangit Bhat (Bajaj). They
have affixed a board on the plaintiff's society compound, displaying of
their union as 'Dashing Amdar Ram Kadam Kamgar Union'. The
defendants by their Charter of Demand dated 03/08/2018, made all
illegal demands. It is the contention of plaintiff housing society that the
defendants are not covered under the definition of workmen as per
provision of Industrial Dispute Act, therefore, they cannot form any
union. The plaintiff has prayed for declaration that the defendants
cannot form their union in respect of the staff of plaintiff society under
the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair
Labour Laws Practices Act, 1971. Further, plaintiff prayed for
restraining them permanently from entering into the plaintiff's society
and carrying their business of union administration with and from
causing nuisance and harassment in the plaintiff's society.
2 The summons to the defendants have served but, they
failed to appear, therefore, matter proceeded exparte against them
under the Order and Roznama dated 08/06/2018.
-- 2 of 8 --
..3..
3 At the stage of evidence, the authorized person of plaintiff
entered into the witness box. Evidence of authorized person remains
unchallenged as the matter proceeded exparte. Therefore, there is no
way but to accept the evidence of authorized person. Having substance
in the allegations against the defendants that they are causing nuisance
in the premises of the society. It is to note that as per Roznama dated
26/04/2018, the defendants were directed not to indulge any violent
protest and not to disturb daytoday functioning of the plaintiff's
society. In consequent to the exparte order against the defendants, the
interim order remained continued.
4 At this stage of the arguments, the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
submitted written notes of arguments vide Exh.14. Heard the Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff in addition to the written notes of arguments.
5 Insofar as restraining the defendants from registering their
union is concerned, it is the contention of plaintiff that defendants have
registered their union under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition
of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Laws Practices Act,
1971. It is the contention of the plaintiff's society that these watchmen
or security guards are not workmen as per the provision of Sec.2 of the
Maharashtra Industrial Act. Therefore, they cannot form any trade
union, therefore, plaintiff is entitled for declaration. However, I am of
the view that, it is the look out of registering authority to scrutinize that
whether the defendants are entitled to register themselves and to
constitute a trade union under the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act or
-- 3 of 8 --
..4..
not. No declaration could be sought to prevent any person from
applying to a competent authority for registration or taking legal steps
provided under any law. Such injunction cannot be granted as per the
provision of Sec.41 of the Specific Relief Act. In case, the plaintiff feels
aggrieved to the decision of concerned registering authority, it may
challenged at an appropriate forum against the decision of registering
the union. Plaintiff's cannot seek declaration from the Civil Court that
the defendants are not entitled to get themselves registered as union.
In consequent to the registration, the defendants cannot be restrained
from carrying their business of union from the place of their service.
6 So far as raising the protest is concerned, the defendants
are being the watchmen and workers or security officials of plaintiff's
society, they may raise the peaceful protest but, cannot indulge into
violence. Their absence even though served with sources is sufficient to
draw an inference that the plaintiff has substance in its contention that
defendants are indulging in violent protest and trying to disturb the
regular functioning of the society, therefore, to that extent, the
defendant required to be restrained by injunction.
7 Consequently, I am of the view that the suit to plaintiff may
be decreed partly. Considering that the defendants are the watchmen
and security personals of the plaintiff society, it will be just and proper
to call upon the parties to bear their own costs. With this, I proceed to
pass the following order :
ORDER
1 Suit No.1162/2018, is hereby partly decreed.
-- 4 of 8 --
..5..
2 The defendants are hereby permanently restrained in
indulging the violent protest against the plaintiff
society and from causing disturbance of the daytoday
functioning of the society.
3. Parties to bear their own costs.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Judgment pronounced in open Court)
(Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Jafar)
Judge,
City Civil Court, Greater Bombay
Dated : 20/09/2022 C.R. No.03
Dictated on : 20/09/2022
Typed on : 20/09/2022
Signed on :
-- 5 of 8 --
..6..
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order”.
06/10/2022
at about 05.00 p.m.
(Ms. Vidya Abhijit Mande)
Stenographer (GradeI.)
Court Room No.03, Gr. Mumbai
Name of the Hon'ble Judge : Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Jafar,
Judge, City Civil Court &
Addl. Sessions Judge
Court Room No.03, Gr. Mumbai
Date of pronouncement of Order : 20/09/2022
Order signed by Hon'ble Judge on : 20/09/2022
Order uploaded on : 06/10/2022
at about 05.00 p.m.
-- 6 of 8 --
..7..
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
EXHIBIT NO.16A
S. C. SUIT NO.1162 OF 2018
Dalamal House Commercial complex CHS.
A Society registered under the Maharashtra Co
operative Societies Act, 1960, having their office at
206, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai
400 021, through their Secretary Shri. Gopal
Maheshwari
]
]
]
]
]
] …Plaintiff
V/s.
1 Dashing Aamdar Ram Kadam Kamgar Union
(Registered)
]
2 Shri. Ram Kadam, the President ]
3 Shri. Chandrakant Malkar, Vice President ]
4 Shri. Sunil Metkar, Vice President ]
5 Shri. Sandeep Khopkar, General Secretary ]
6 Shri. Santosh Sawant, Executive ]
All having their main office at Sharavan House,
Behind R. City Mall, Ghatkopar (West),
Mumbai – 400 086.
]
]
] …Defendants
Appearance :
Ld. Adv. Nitin Vhatkar for plaintiff.
None for defendants. (Exparte)
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHAIKH AKBAR SHAIKH JAFAR
COURT ROOM NO.03
DATE : 20/09/2022.
-- 7 of 8 --
..8..
O P E R A T I V E P A R T O F T H E J U D G M E N T
1 Suit No.1162/2018, is hereby partly decreed.
2 The defendants are hereby permanently restrained in
indulging the violent protest against the plaintiff
society and from causing disturbance of the daytoday
functioning of the society.
3. Parties to bear their own costs.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Judgment pronounced in open Court)
(Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Jafar)
Judge,
City Civil Court, Greater Bombay
Dated : 20/09/2022 C.R. No.03
-- 8 of 8 --