Calcutta High Court
Abbott Healthcare Private Limited vs Federation Of Medical And Sales … on 25 August, 2025
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
OD-35 & 36 ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IA NO. GA/1/2024
IN
CS/207/2024
ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
FEDERATION OF MEDICAL AND SALES REPRESENTATIVES
ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIA AND ORS.
IA NO. GA/3/2024
IN
CS/207/2024
ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
FEDERATION OF MEDICAL AND SALES REPRESENTATIVES
ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIA AND ORS.
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 25th August, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Adv.(VC)
Mr. Arik Banerjee, Adv.(VC)
Mr. Pujon Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Altamash Alim, Adv.
Mr. Aniket Choudhury, Adv.
Mr. Sutosom Bhattacharyya, Adv.
For the plaintiff.
Mr. Aninda Lahiri, Adv.
Ms. Dipika Banu, Adv.
Mr. Subhadip Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. Bolivia Roy, Adv.
For the defendants.
2
The Court:- GA/1/2024 is an application by the plaintiff, the
prayers whereof are set out hereunder:-
"(a) An order of temporary injunction be passed restraining
the Respondents, its office bearers, men, agents, members,
and assigns from creating any sort of obstruction or
hindrance in the running of the business and the working of
the petitioner company and its employees in Kolkata and
throughout the State of West Bengal;
(b) An order of injunction be passed restraining the
Respondents, its office bearers, men, agents, members, and
assigns from carrying on any agitation or demonstration for
the purpose of restraining and/or preventing the Petitioner
company and its employees from carrying on their business
activities in Kolkata as well as in the State of West Bengal.
(c) An order of temporary injunction be passed restraining
the Respondents, its office bearers, men, agent, members,
and assigns from threatening the managers and other
employees of the Petitioner company from carrying out their
daily field work as representatives of the petitioner company;
(d) An order of temporary injunction restraining the
Respondents, its office bearers, men, members, agents and
3
assigns from spreading rumours and allegations against the
Petitioner company among any hospitals, nursing homes
and doctors in Kolkata as well as in the State of West
Bengal;
(e) An order of temporary injunction restraining the
Respondents, its office bearers, men, agents, members and
assigns from restraining the Petitioner company and its
employees from meeting doctors in Kolkata as well as in the
State of West Bengal in their respective chambers or
elsewhere in the course of their daily field work;
(f) Ad interim orders in terms of prayers made above;
(g) Such further or other order or orders as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fir and proper.”
This application on being moved ex parte an order was passed
on 7th October, 2024, the operative portion whereof is as follows:-
“Accordingly, the defendants, its office bearers, men, agents,
members and assigns are restrained from creating any obstruction or
hindrance in the running of the business and working of the plaintiff
company and its employees in Kolkata and throughout the State of
West Bengal.”
This order has been extended from time to time in the
presence of the defendants and is still in subsistence.
4
The defendants have taken out an application for vacating the
order dated 7th October, 2024 on 20th November, 2024. This
application is numbered as GA/3/2024. Both the applications are
taken up for hearing together.
The plaintiff says that the interim order passed on 7th
October, 2024 should be confirmed so that the plaintiff does not face
any impediment in smooth functioning, due operation and from
carrying on its day-to-day business.
The plaintiff says that due to the illegal and wrongful
activities, the particulars whereof are provided in the said application
and will be further borne out from the various annexures to the said
application it will be evident that the defendants, its men, agents,
members and assigns have caused detriment to the running of the
plaintiff’s business. The plaintiff says that the sales representatives of
the plaintiff company while working in the field and visiting the
individual doctors and the doctors at various hospitals, nursing homes
and medical center have been not only harassed but also prevented
from carrying on and discharging their regular duties. The order of
injunction is, therefore, according to the plaintiff is necessary to
prevent such illegal and wrongful activities.
The defendants on the other hand denies the allegations
made by the plaintiff and say that the defendant no.1 being a
5
registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (in short
1926 Act) is entitled to ventilate the grievances of the staff and
employees, particularly of those who are its members. The defendants
also say that the plaintiff has acted in violation of the provisions of the
Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 which not
only safeguards the interest of the Sales Promotion Employees but also
protect their right of collective bargaining through a registered trade
union. The defendants also say that the act and activities of the
plaintiff is in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. The defendants further say that by using the ad interim order
dated 7th October, 2024 as a tool of oppression, the plaintiff has
prevented even normal trade union activities which includes protest,
demonstration and dharnas by observing the limits and restrictions
provided under the 1926 Act. The defendants, therefore, say that the
order dated 7th October, 2024 should be discharged and/or varied.
In reply, the plaintiff says that an interim order of injunction
can be vacated only if the grounds available under Order XXXIX Rule 4
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) are available and fulfilled by
the party seeking the discharge or variance of the order of injunction.
In the instant case the defendants have not been able to show
any ground for which the interim order of injunction dated 7 th October,
6
2024 is required to be vacated. There is no suppression of material fact
or subsequent change in situation.
After hearing the parties and considering the materials on
records, I find that there is no dispute as to the defendant no.1 being a
registered trade union under the 1926 Act. It is, however, in dispute
whether defendant no.1 is a recognized trade union of the plaintiff
company.
Be that as it may, a trade union and its members under the
1926 Act have certain privilege and protection. These rights, privilege
and protection under the 1926 Act have fallen for consideration in
several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of various High
Courts. At the end of the day unless there is any illegal and wrongful
activity like criminal intimidation, physically assaulting any willing
member from joining the regular office or by directly causing loss to
the business of the employer company, the rights, privilege and
protection available under the 1926 Act are not interfered with. On a
close study of the 1976 Act, I do not find any pari materia condition as
contained in Section 36AD of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which
clearly provides for punishment for certain activities in relation to
banking company which denudes an employee from the protection
available under the 1926 Act.
7
In the instant case the allegations and counter allegations
clearly show that the plaintiff company is trying to protect its willing
employees and any hindrance to its regular business activities while
the defendant no.1 is protesting against illegal and wrongful activities
of the management including alleged illegal transfer and unlawful
termination of service of the employees. These allegations and counter
allegations cannot be either held to be true or correct or false at the
interlocutory stage without their being any clinching evidence to that
effect. It is at the same correct that the willing employees of the
plaintiff company should not be intimidated or terrorized or subjected
to any harassment or assault in course of discharging their regular
duties while it is also correct that a registered trade union should be
permitted to ventilate its grievances through protest, dharna, rally,
demonstration etc strictly in accordance with the provisions of 1926
Act and other applicable Acts statutory provisions.
It cannot also be said at this stage without further
ascertainment that the version of one party is true and correct while
that of the other is false and incorrect. It is also settled provision of law
that in a deserving case even if the parameters laid down in Order
XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC are not strictly complied with then also the
Court for the ends of justice vary or discharge the order under its
inherent jurisdiction.
8
In the instant case, the interim order was passed on 7th
October, 2024 and the vacating application was made on 20 th
November, 2024 and, as such, it cannot be said that the vacating
application was made after a long delay, particularly, keeping in mind
that the puja vacation for the year 2024 intervened for a considerable
period between 7th October, 2024 and 20th November, 2024.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, to strike a balance,
I clarify the order dated 7th October, 2024 by permitting the defendants
no.1 and its members from carrying out normal trade union activities
like protest, rally and dharna but the same should be beyond 50
meters from the office premises of the plaintiff company. The
defendants, however, will be permitted to display protest materials or
posters in the notice board maintained in the offices of the plaintiff
company. The defendants and/or the members of the defendant no.1
company should not intimidate or terrorize any willing employee of the
plaintiff company from either joining the work or in carrying out the
same or from visiting the doctors at their chambers, hospital and other
places.
It is further classified that the plaintiff shall not be entitled to
take any steps or enforce any ban on the protest gatherings, rally,
demonstration or dharna if the same are carried out by the members of
9
the defendant no.1 in a responsible manner and strictly in accordance
with the provisions of 1926 Act.
It is also clarified that the plaintiff shall not make use of any
force or carry out any oppressive act in preventing lawful trade union
activities in and around the precincts of the office of the plaintiff
company by using the order dated 7th October, 2024 or even otherwise.
With the aforesaid clarification, GA/1/2024 and GA/3/2024
stand disposed of.
Disposal of these two applications will not stand in the way in
the individual employees from approaching the authority under the
1947 Act.
The point of maintainability of the suit as raised by the
defendants are kept open.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)
Sb/