East India Hotels vs Ob Int.

Hotel Employees on 4 October, 1994

Delhi High Court Delhi High Court East India Hotels vs Ob Int. Hotel Employees on 4 October, 1994 Equivalent citations: (1995) ILLJ 1177 Del, 1995 RLR 149 Author: U Mehra Bench: U Mehra JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J. (1) By this application, the Plaintiff wants to add a prayer clause seeking relief of permanent injunction against deft. 2 to 6 from in any manner entering into the hotel premises. (2) The facts are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against defts. alleging therein that defts. 2 to 6 being office bearers of deft. No. 1 came into the restaurant and surrounded Mr. Javed Baig, Asstt. Manager while he was on duty in the "Baan Thai Restaurant" on 30th June, 1994. They abused him using filthy language. Because of this offensive and abusive attitude of the defts. though no provocation was given by the Asstt. manager, the deft. No. 2 caught hold of Mr. Baig and pulled his tie and dragged him while abusing. The defts. 3 to 6 followed suit. Deft. No. 2 also pushed Mr. Baig while other defts. kicked him. Defts. 2 to 6 physically lifted Mr. Baig and carried him from the said Restaurant and dumped him in the kitchen shouting slogans and using filthy and unparliamentary language. It was because of this serious incident which took place inside the hotel with the Asstt. Manager, when the Management found that atmosphere was not conducive for the guests, visitors and other present in the hotel, and therefore, after investigating the incident suspended the defts. 2 to 6 pending charge sheets and enquiry. While suspension letters were being issued to defts. 2 to 6, they started shouting slogans, used unparliamentary language against the Management. They were joined by about 50 to 60 other employees. They all started shouting slogans within hotel premises causing public nuisance, panic amongst the guests as well as the visitors in the hotel. Since defts. 2 to 6 were suspended and were not permitted to enter the hotel premises, they, therefore, on 30th May, 1994 at about 10 Pm by disregarding the security staff's warning not to enter the hotel premises forcibly entered the hotel and behaved in a unruly manner demanded keys of Cafeteria meant for staff. When keys were not made available they rushed to the main kitchen of the hotel and shouted slogans and disrupted other staff on duty. There they forcibly remained till - .30 A.M. It was in this background that the police report was filed. The police arrested defts. 3, 4 and 6 while defts 2 and 5 ran away Defts 3, 4 and 6 were charged u/S 107 and 151 of the Criminal P. C. Defts 2 to 6 after suspension are instigating other employees of the hotel to resort to violent activities, holding demonstrations, dharnas, gheraos, strike and have been obstructing the Ingress and egress of the willing employees in order to put pressure on the plaintiff to withdraw the suspension order against the said defts. In these circumstances, the suit was filed along- with an application which was listed as I A. No. 5229/94. (3) In the main suit though the basis for restraining the defts 2 to 6 from entering upon the plaintiff's hotel was laid but by typographical mistake, the relief against defts. 2 to 6 was not incorporated in the prayer clause in the suit. Though in the application filed Along with bearing IA. No. 5229/94 prayer to this effect was incorporated. During course of arguments, East India Hotels vs. Ob. Int. Hotel Employees when defendants took the objection that in the main suit the relief of restraint against defts. 2 to 6 has not been incorporated, therefore, this relief in the interim application cannot be granted. In order to avoid this technical objection, the present amendment has been sought in this suit. (4) Reply to this application has been filed taking the objection, inter alia, that if this amendment is allowed, it would, entirely change the nature of the cause of action already set up. The omission in the prayer clause of the main suit was neither by oversight nor due to any typographical error. The relief now sought to be incorporated is an after thought. In the suspension order the plaintiff has not restricted nor forbid defts. 2 to 6 from entering the hotel premises. The plaintiff has in fact waived this relief. The amendment has been sought
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/500223/ 1

East India Hotels vs Ob Int. Hotel Employees on 4 October, 1994

in order to over reach the Court and is an abuse of the process of the Court. Moreover, this relief is against the provisions of Trade Union Act which allows and protects defts. 2 to 6 as members and office bearers of a regd. trade union to carry out legitimate trade union activities. (5) I have heard Mr. H.L. Tikku, counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. Swatantra Kumar, Senior Counsel for the defendants and also perused the record. It is well settled principle of law that an amendment which does not change the cause of action set up can be allowed. The law of amendment is liberal unless it is established that the amendment would take away the right already accrued in favor of the defts. or the plaintiff is setting up altogether a new case. Even the admission made cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. But that is not the case in hand. The reading of paras 8 to 16 of the plaint clearly show that plaintiff set up a case against defts. 2 to 6. It has also been mentioned in para 16 of the plaint that defts. 2 to 6 have been putting pressure and coercion on the plaintiff to withdraw the suspension order and with that object in mind have been instigating, aiding and abetting the other employees to resort to violent act and were physically obstructing the willing employees to resume duty. Other employees at the behest of these defts. threatened to hold demonstrations, dharnas, strike and gheraos and have also resorted to acts by which the properties of the plaintiff would be damaged. Therefore, once the basis of the prayer has already been set up in the suit the mere fact that in the prayer clause by omission this relief has not been sought, to my mind, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has given up this relief or it amounts to waiver nor can it be said that amendment on this account amounts to setting up a totally new case. What is the effect of restraining order against these defts. would be looked into while deciding the stay application. At this stage, it cannot be said that the amendment sought is against any law. The question whether the relief sought against defts. 2 to 6 can be granted or not will be considered on the merits of the case, but so far as the amendment is concerned that cannot be rejected on this ground. Therefore, taking all these factors into consideration, I allow the amendment as prayed.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/500223/