IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 26 of 2009 Anand Nishikawa Company Employees Union and others ...…………. Appellants / defendants Versus Anand Nishikawa Company Rampur Road, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar through Nideshak (Work) Amrik Singh ...…………. Respondent / plaintiff Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S.Chaudhary, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the respondent. nt, J. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pa This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2009, passed by the first appellate court (Addl. District Judge / III F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar) in Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2007, whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2007, passed by the trial court is affirmed, but modified. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission. 3) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff / respondent M/s Anand Nishikawa Company 2 Limited instituted Suit No. 96 of 2005, against its employees union (present appellant) seeking permanent injunction restraining them from holding meeting, dharna, picketing, gate meeting, gherao, within 500 meters on both gates of the plaintiff company. The defendants / appellants contested the suit and filed their written statement denying the allegations in the plaint. The trial court as well as the first appellate court gave a concurrent finding of fact that the defendants employees union created obstruction in the working of the plaintiff company. The trial court decreed the suit with the direction that the defendants are restrained from holding meeting, dharna, picketing, gate meeting, gherao, within 500 meters of the factory premises of the plaintiff. The first appellate court affirmed the decree with the modification that the restriction would be only to the extent of 300 meters of circumference from the gates. 4) Since, there is concurrent finding of fact as to the nuisance created by the defendants, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree, passed by the first appellate court. Otherwise also, there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, summarily. (Stay Application No. 4117 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. June 02, 2009. H. Negi