Paramjeet Singh, J. - (1.) THIS regular second appeal of defendant No. 5 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridabad whereby suit filed by respondent No. 1 -plaintiff for permanent injunction has been decreed and against the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby two separate appeals filed by defendants No. 2 to 4 and appellant -defendant No. 5 have been partly allowed. For convenience sake, hereinafter, reference to parties is being made as per their status in civil suit.
(2.) THE detailed facts tire already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the smooth working of the plaintiff -Company, stopping egress and ingress of men, material and vehicular traffic to and fro the plaintiff -Company at plot Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of Sector 25, Faridabad and further for restraining the defendants from holding any general body meeting, gate meeting, holding demonstration, shouting filthy and defamatory slogans, to use loud speakers and further from stopping loyal workers from working inside the factory and also restraining the defendants from sitting on Dharna, pitching tents and carrying out demonstrations, agitation, installing banners or holding meeting etc. within the radius of 500 metres of the main gate and boundary wall of the plaintiff -factory. It was pleaded in plaint that defendants No. 5 to 7, who are dismissed employees of the plaintiff, have misguided the workers of the plaintiff to boycott the safety equipment so that in case of any fatal accident, the manager/occupier of the plaintiff company are prosecuted. Defendants No. 5 to 7 with ulterior motives started creating problems in smooth running of the factory despite the fact that they have no right whatsoever, being the dismissed employees of the Company. On 29.11.2004, defendants No. 5 to 7 along with others came to the factory gate and started holding gate meeting without any permission. They raised filthy and abusive slogans against the officers, managers and top brass of the company and stopped the egress and ingress of men, material and vehicular traffic to and from the factory of the company. On 30.11.2004, defendants No. 5 to 7 along with other defendants came to the factory gate and threatened the managers and other staff for dire consequences. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 8 had submitted a charter of demands dated 08.12.2004 despite the fact that tripartite settlement was still operative and binding on all the workmen of the factory. Hence, suit was filed. Defendants No. 2 to 7 resisted the suit and filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that they had merely raised their legal demands as per law and as per compromise/settlement of the workers with management, however, the plaintiff had illegally terminated the services of the representatives of the employees' union. Defendant No. 8 is colluding with the plaintiff -Company and he is not in fact the president of the workers' union. The earlier suits filed by the plaintiff have been dismissed as withdrawn. Other averments in plaint were, denied and dismissal of suit was prayed for.
(3.) DEFENDANT No. 8 filed separate written statement and pleaded that he being elected president of the union, has every right to settle or take part in the negotiations and conciliation meetings on behalf of the union. Defendants No. 5 to 7 have been dismissed. Denying the averments in plaint, dismissal of suit was prayed for.;