MAHESH GROVER,J - (1.) THIS is a revision petition directed against order dated 24.12.2004 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad by which the application filed by the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the C.P.C.') has been allowed and the suit of the petitioner has been rejected.
(2.) THE petitioner, styling itself as All K.G.Khosla Karamchari Union (Registered), filed a suit through its Secretary for permanent injunction against the respondents. It was pleaded by the petitioner that it is a workers' union duly affiliated with the I.N.T.U.C. and registered under the Trade Unions Act and its Secretary was duly authorised to present the suit. As per the pleadings raised by the petitioner in the suit, it was averred that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the companies located in the same premises and out of 80 workers of the Union, 19 were employed with respondent No. 1 while 61 workers were employed with respondent No. 2. All these employees were regular employees and were entitled to the benefits as admissible under various statutes, such as gratuity, ex-gratia, bonus etc. According to the petitioner, the management of respondent No. 1 had terminated the services of 19 workers illegally and without assigning any reason and the affected persons had consequently raised respective demand notices under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') which were pending before various authorities and were at advance stages of finalization. None of them, however, had been decided so far. Similarly, the management of respondent No. 2 had decided to close down the unit and a dispute regarding illegal closure was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. It was alleged that the respondents, in collusion with each other and in order to defeat the claim of the employees, were trying to dispose of the machinery and other assets of the companies because the liabilities were likely to accrue in the event of various cases of the employees becoming final. With these averments in the background, the petitioner had prayed that the respondents be restrained from negotiating, selling, transferring/shifting and removing plant, machinery, land and buildings of the companies, records, raw material, finished/unfinished goods, furniture, fixtures, telephones, vehicles etc. In short, the prayer made by the petitioner was that the companies be restrained from disturbing their present assets in any manner till the time the claims of the employees in various fora are decided so that they can execute the same against the assets of the companies. Upon notice, the respondents moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. And prayed that the suit be dismissed because it did not disclose any cause of action and was barred by the provisions of the Act as the Civil Court did not have any jurisdiction to entertain such suit.
(3.) THE Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, who was seized of the matter, rejected the suit of the petitioner vide order dated 24.12.2004. Hence, the present revision petition.;