Indira Gandhi National Open ... vs M/S Spick & Span Facilities ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 806 Del

                                                       UNREPORTABLE

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                           CS(OS) No.83/2008


                                Date of Decision: March 13, 2009


        INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY       .... Plaintiff
                       Through Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate


                       VERSUS


        M/S SPICK & SPAN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. & ORS
                                                   ..... Defendants
                        Through Defendants ex parte.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.      Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
        judgment? No
2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No

REKHA SHARMA, J.

This suit by the plaintiff, namely, Indira Gandhi National Open

University is for a decree of permanent injunction against defendants

No.3 to 6 from organizing or leading any mob in picketing, gheraoing,

demonstrating, putting lock on gate and/or putting up tent, shamiana,

loud speakers, mike etc., in front of the main entrance of the Maidan

Garhi Campus, New Delhi. The facts relevant for the disposal of the

suit are as under:-

The plaintiff is a university established under the Indira Gandhi

National Open University Act, 1985. It imparts education through

distant learning and reaches out to students, not only across the

length and breadth of our own country but also in foreign countries. It

has its Central Headquarter at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi which acts as a

nerve centre for coordinating the functions of various regional centers.

The Campus is spread over an area of 151.32 acres and about 800

officials are working there. In view of the magnitude of the area in

which the Campus is housed and the number of employees working

there, the plaintiff requires considerable manpower for carrying out

housekeeping services including cleaning and sanitation. In the year

2004, the plaintiff outsourced the work of cleaning and sanitation by

awarding a contract to defendant No.2 M/s Sybex Computer Systems

(P) Ltd. The said Contractor employed about 70 sweepers and cleaners

for carrying out its contractual obligation. The workers so employed

were the employees of the Contractor and the plaintiff did not play any

role in their appointment, nor it had any obligation towards them. The

contract between defendant No.2 and its employees subsisted till the

year 2007. Thereafter, on November 01, 2007 the plaintiff awarded

the contract to defendant No.1, namely M/s Spick & Span Facilities

Management Pvt. Ltd. The said defendant initially retained the

services of 65 out of 70 sweepers who were employed with defendant

No.2 but subsequently dispensed with their services as they resorted

to agitation and extended threats to the Director of defendant No.1.

About two months after the termination of the services of the workers

of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1, they along with a mob of around

200 persons sat on dharna outside the gate of Maidan Garhi campus of

the plaintiff under the banners of defendants No.3 & 5, i.e. Indian

Justice Party and Trade Union for Justice respectively. They demanded

reinstatement of the workers and forcibly tried to enter the gate of the

campus. The situation would have turned riotous, had the police not

been called for assistance. The plaintiff in order to diffuse the situation

called defendants No.4 & 6, namely, Dr. Udit Raj and Mr. V.P.Singh

respectively who were the mob leaders and tried to explain to them

that none of the workers were appointed by the plaintiff and, therefore,

there was no question of their reinstatement by the university. It was

also explained to them that the cleaners/sweepers, if at all, were the

employees of defendant No.2 and that so far as the plaintiff is

concerned, it had already entered into a fresh contract with defendant

No.1 but they not only refused to see reason but also threatened to

reassemble at the university gate with a view to block the ingress and

egress of the university employees. Such defiant attitude on the part

of defendants No.2 to 6 led the plaintiff to file the present suit along

with an application being I.A. No.570 of 2008 on which an ad-interim

order was passed restraining defendants No.2 to 6 from picketing,

gheraoing or demonstrating in the vicinity of the plaintiff's premises.

Despite service of summons, none appeared for defendants No.1

& 2. In so far as defendants No.3 to 6 are concerned, they did appear

in response to the summons and even filed written statement, but

subsequent thereto they too absented from the proceedings. Hence,

by order dated January 19, 2009 all the defendants were proceeded

against ex parte.

In the written statement filed by defendants No.3 to 6, it is

stated that the persons employed by defendant No.2 were the

employees of the University and in support, reference was made to the

attendance register and salary/wages register. The plaintiff filed

replication to the written statement and therein disputed the stand of

defendants No.3 to 6. In any case, because of the absence of the

defendants consequent to the filing of the written statement, no

evidence was led in support of the averments made in the written

statement and the same, therefore, are of no consequence.

The plaintiff, on the other hand, filed affidavit by way of

evidence, signed and sworn by its Registrar, namely, Shri U.S.Tolia who

reiterated on oath the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff also

placed and proved on record agreement dated November 01, 2004

which it had entered into with defendant No.2. The same is Ex.PW1/1.

As per the agreement, the persons deployed by the Contractor at no

time were to be treated as employees of the university and they were

to have no claim against the University for regularization of their

services. It was also a term of the agreement that the persons

deployed by the Contractor were not to indulge in criminal activities,

malpractices or undesirable acts and if they did, they were to be dealt

with under the provisions of law.

In view of what has been noticed above, particularly, the terms

of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant

No.2, the workers employed by defendant No.2 cannot be held to be

the employees of the plaintiff and consequently, they cannot claim or

seek any benefit from the plaintiff. The agreement between the

plaintiff and defendant No.2 having come to an end, the persons

employed by defendant No.2 ceased to have any connection

whatsoever with the plaintiff. Accordingly, I hold that the agitation

resorted to by the defendants was uncalled for, illegal and without any

justification. Hence, I pass a decree of permanent injunction

restraining defendants No.3 to 6 from organizing or leading any mob in

picketing, gheraoing, demonstrating, putting lock on gate and/or

putting up tent, shamiana, loud speakers, mike etc. in front of the main

entrance of the Maidan Garhi Campus, New Delhi of the plaintiff-

university. Decree-sheet be drawn.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

MARCH 13, 2009 ka