Standing Conference Of Public ... vs Delhi Office & Est. Employee Union ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 263 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Mukerjee, J.

1. The present suit has been filed by the Standing Conference of Public Enterprises praying a decree of permanent injunction.

2. Defendants No. 1, 4 to 9 and 11 to 13 were proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.4.99. Defendants 2,3,10,16,17,18 and 19 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.10.97. Defendant No. 15 was proceeded against ex-parte on 17.01.2001.

3. The plaintiff has filed its affidavit by way of evidence in the present case and the various documents have been duly exhibited as PW/1 being letter dated 9th September, 1997 to the concerned Police Station. Exhibit PW1/2, letter dated 9th September, 1997, letter addressed to Labour Commissioner and PW1/3, letter dated 11th September, 1997 issued to the Station House Officer, Lodhi Colony Police Station.

4. Shri U.K. Gupta, the General Manager of the plaintiff has deposed in his statement in affidavit that the plaintiff is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is providing maintenance services to various Central Government Undertakings which are housed in the SCOPE Complex at 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

5. He has further deposed that the SCOPE Complex at Lodhi Road, New Delhi have 24 Central Government undertakings which have their offices and approximately 8000 employees are employed in the Complex by the various Central Government undertakings and that in order to provide effective and meaningful maintenance services, the plaintiff has engaged a number of contractors for providing services in the various areas such as maintenance of electric sub-stations, DG sets which are housed in the basement of the Complex, pumping of sanitary and water supply, maintenance of lifts , maintenance and operation of mechanical ventilation, cleaning of garbage disposal, Traffic Management and Surveillance of common area etc. The Contractors so engaged have hired their own work force for discharging their obligations for providing service under the agreements and they alone pay their salaries and also deduct and deposit their PF and ESI contributions under the independent code numbers allotted to them by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner etc. There is, therefore, no relationship of employer and employee between the plaintiff and the persons hired by the contractors for providing service under the agreement entered into by them with the plaintiff.

6. It has also been established that a number of disputes have been raised with the Conciliation authorities and in some of the cases, the Government has also made a reference for adjudication of the disputes to the Industrial Tribunal.

7. The stand of the plaintiff is that the Industrial Tribunal, however, passed an interlocutory order on 16.2.96 and recorded a finding that the persons employed by the contractors are deemed to be employees of the plaintiff without deciding the legal objections challenging the maintainability of the order of reference made by the Government.

8. It has been stated and argued that the interlocutory order dated 16.2.96 is not enforceable under law as the same having not been passed by way of an award and having not been published in the official gazette as required under law.

9. The stand of the plaintiff that the said interlocutory order is wholly illegal, unlawful and without any jurisdiction, has not been rebutted by the defendants.

10. It has also come on evidence that certain contract labour declined to accept their salaries from the month of July, 1997 and that they demanded that the salaries should be paid by the plaintiff. Since the matter was sub-judice pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, they could not force the plaintiff to pay them the salaries.

11. It has also come on evidence that in order to coerce and pressurize the plaintiff, the defendants not only suspended the operational services, but also indulged in sabotage activities of the sewerage and power and water supply, as a result of which the working in the complex as well, which housed 24 public undertakings was completely paralysed.

12. The plaintiff's case which has gone unrebutted is that the building is a eight storied building and the lifts in the absence of power supply stopped functioning causing great inconvenience to the employees and visitors visiting the complex and the contract labour continued to suspend the power and water supply from 11th to 13th August, 1997 and thereafter they resorted to same tactics on 20th August, 1997.

13. The plaintiff's case which has gone unrebutted is that though the authorities namely Assistant Labour Commissioner and Dy. Commissioner of Police were informed about the disturbance of services but the same did not remedy the situation.

14. The plaintiff further states that in an attempt to defuse the situation which was creating serious consequences for the plaintiff and since the maintenance services in the complex were being paralysed and concerned contract labour were refusing to accept their salary from the contractors, the contractors intimated the plaintiff to pay the salaries to his workers on his behalf and in order to resolve the matter, the plaintiff without prejudice, paid their salaries on behalf of the contractors and the fact that such salary had to be paid under coercion was also placed before the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi by way of an application.

15. On 9.9.97, certain set of contract laborers threatened to resort to 'Chakka Jam' and create such situation by which the work in the Complex will come to a stand still.

16. The plaintiff informed the SHO of concerned Police Station, Lodhi Road, vide letter dated 9.9.97 pertaining to the demonstration and disruption of essential services by workers and sought Police protection on this account from the concerned officer. That letter is exhibit PW1/1. The plaintiff also informed the Labour Commissioner vide letter dated 9.9.97 regarding the threat posed by the workers and also disruption of essential services in the Complex and sought intervention of the concerned authority in the matter. The letter dated 9.9.97 intimating the facts to the Labour Commissioner is signed by witness PW1 and it bears signatures of witness PW1 and the same is Ex. PW1/2.

17. The witness of the plaintiff PW1 has also categorically stated in his evidence that on 11.9.97 the contract labour deliberately and willfully indulged in sabotage; they choked the drain pipe of the toilet at the ground floor and since there were 8 toilets, one after the above in the other floor, sewerage fell over at the ground floor which is surrounded by convention centres where important meetings and seminars were to take place. The dirty and filthy sewerage was spread in the area creating a terrible foul smell. The matter was taken up with the Contract Labour. The Contract Labour declined to remove the sewerage and did not allow the concerned persons to rectify the sewer line. When the contractor brought some other work force for cleaning of the toilets, the contract labour, which included the defendants as well, physically obstructed them and did not allow them to do the work and clean the toilets. The matter had to be reported to the police and despite police intervention, the contract labour did not allow the contractor and his persons to clean the toilets and, as such, the reinforcement had be called and it is only then that the toilets could be cleaned under the protection and supervision of the police.

18. The contract labour also sabotaged the fire fighting line as a result of which the water started overflowing in part of the building and damaged the furniture and carpets. The matter was reported to the police in writing vide letter dated 11.9.97 by the witness and same is Ex. PW1/3.

19. It is the clear and unrebutted averment of the plaintiff that the defendants have threatened that they shall continue to disrupt and paralyse the services in the complex.

20. At this stage the Court is to consider protecting the plaintiff's right to run his establishment without coercion, pressure and illegal interference and not concerned with the merits of labour rights of the defendants. The defendants 5 to 19 have no right, much less a legal right, to indulge in illegal and unlawful activities. They are also holding demonstrations and have also threatened to stop the ingress and egress of the officers as well as the employees of various public sector undertakings and visitors to and from the Scope Complex. Further, if the defendants continue to indulge in the unlawful activities, the operations of the plaintiff would come to stand still and cripple the functioning of the 24 Public Undertakings. The defendants 5 to 19 cannot be allowed to indulge in nefarious and unlawful activities. They must be restrained from holding any demonstration, dharna etc. and from entering the Complex premises.

21. Keeping in view the clear and categorical pleadings of the plaintiff and the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff which is on record Along with the exhibited documents, it stands established that unless the defendants are restrained in the appropriate manner, then, in that case, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury as the operation of the plaintiff would come to stand still and it will amount to grave and continuing violation of the legal rights of plaintiff. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts that the right of the workman/employee is only to peacefully ventilate their grievances and to have collective bargaining and not to cause the violation of the constitutional and legal rights of the management/plaintiff.

22. The Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff has further submitted that the remedy should be moulded to the facts and circumstances and requirement of each case. Accordingly, I consider it proper to pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants No. 5 to 19 from carrying out any violent demonstrations or any activity or omission which disrupts or has the effect of disrupting to the providing amenities, ingress and egress and good maintenance and of the building and from indulging in any act of commission or omission which may operate to the prejudice of the plaintiff, provided that defendants No. 4 to 19 shall be entitled to hold a peaceful demonstration or dharna, or public meeting or protest after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities at a place which is beyond the distance of 100 metres from the boundary walls and gates of the plaintiff building at 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, subject to further condition that defendants shall not indulge in any defamation or slander or distributing any pamphlet containing defamatory or scandalous material or abusive slogans or otherwise preventing any workman/employee/officer from discharging his duties.

23. It will be open to the plaintiff to insist that any of the defendants No. 5 to 19 on their agents, associates or union members of anybody acting for or on their behalf, to furnish undertaking of compliance with the injunction granted today, as a pre-condition for entering the scope of premises 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

24. Needless to add if the occasion so arises, the plaintiff will be entitled to take all police help for the purpose of enforcing this injunction Order granted today and/or for ensuring that the orders of this Court are not violated or flouted.

25. Suit is decreed in above terms but with no orders as to costs.