M/S G4S Security Services (India) ... vs Group-4 Securicor Employees ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 942 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                        Judgment Pronounced on: 17.02.2011

+           CS(OS) No. 833/2009

M/S G4S SECURITY SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD
                                     .....Plaintiff

                               - versus -

GROUP-4    SECURICOR                  EMPLOYEES          WELFARE
ASSOCIATION & ORS                                  .....Defendant

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, Mr. Eklavya Bahl and
                   Mr. Ajay Shekhar
For the Defendant: None.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether 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 Digest?                                                 No

V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a suit for permanent injunction.

Defendants No. 1 to 3 are three separate unions of the

employees of the plaintiff, which is engaged in the business

of providing security services. It is alleged in the plaint that

some employees, in connivance with the unions, started

stopping the ingress and egress of the other employees and

threatening to demonstrate in front of the offices/residences

of the management. The plaintiff company was, therefore,

constrained to file CS(OS) No. 1746/2006 wherein an

interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants

from picketing within 100 meters from the gates of the

offices and residences of officers of the plaintiff company

and they were further restrained from blocking the ingress

and egress of the staff and workers of the plaintiff company.

That suit is still pending in this Court. It is further alleged

that since new unions came up and they refused to abide by

the aforesaid order, the plaintiff company had to file another

suit being CS(OS) No. 1555/2007 against them. That suit

has been decreed by this Court restraining the defendants

from holding any demonstration, etc. within 100 meters

from the gates of the offices of the plaintiff company and the

residences of its officers as also from holding any

demonstration at Jantar Mantar in the uniform provided to

them by the plaintiff company. Similar interim relief was

granted to the plaintiff company in CS(OS) No. 355/2009.

2. It is also alleged that the defendants, which are not

recognized by the plaintiff company, have now started

interfering in the affairs of the plaintiff company and raising

illegal demands including illegal out of turn promotion for

its members. They gave a demand notice, which the plaintiff

company received on 4 th May 2009, raising some illegal

demands. A letter dated 4th May 2009 was issued by

defendant No.1 to the Regional President of the plaintiff

company, threatening to hold demonstration and dharna at

the residence on 11th May 2009. It is further alleged that

the defendants and their office bearers and members have

also threatened to hold mammoth gathering coupled with

procession, dharna and demonstration in front of the

regional office of the plaintiff company. They have also

threatened to completely stop the work of the plaintiff

company. The plaintiff has accordingly sought permanent

injunction restraining the defendants, their office bearers,

workers, etc. from shouting slogans, holding dharna,

demonstration, etc. within a radius of 100 meters from the

gates/boundary wall of the plaintiff company at the

registered office at 16, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak

Puri, New Delhi-110058, its corporate office at Panchwati,

82A, Sector 18, Gurgaon (Haryana) and the residence of its

Regional President at Green Farm No.1, Rajokri, Near

Rajokri Red Light, New Delhi.

3. Defendants No.1 and 3 were proceeded ex parte.

Defendant No.2 filed written statement alleging therein that

the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit against

him. He further stated that he never believed in violence

and never decided to go for a violent demonstration from

11th May 2009 onwards. However, when he appeared before

this Court on 27th January 2011, he made a statement that

he never participated in any demonstration, dharna, raising

any slogan etc. and also gave an undertaking not to do so

within a radius of 100 meters from various premises of the

plaintiff as stated in the prayer clause to the plaint.

4. The plaintiff company has filed affidavit of Mr.

Sanjeev Kumar Taku, Senior Manger of the plaintiff

company. In his affidavit, Mr. Taku stated that the

defendants have been regularly interfering in the affairs of

the plaintiff company and have been raising illegal demands

including out of turn promotion to its members. He further

stated that the defendants gave a notice which the plaintiff

company received on 4th May 2009 making various illegal

demands. He further stated that defendant No.1 issued a

letter to the Regional President of the plaintiff company on

4th May 2009 threatening to hold a demonstration and

dharna on 11th May 2009 and further threatened to

intensify the agitation. According to him, the defendants,

their office bearers and members have further threatened to

have mammoth gathering, procession, dharna and

demonstration in front of the regional office of the plaintiff

company and have further threatened to completely stop the

work of plaintiff company besides stopping ingress and

egress.

5. A perusal of the notice issued by Mr. Rajbir Singh

Dhaka, General Secretary of defendant No.1 written to the

Regional President of the plaintiff company shows that

defendant No.1 had demanded reinstatement of some

employees and acceptance of certain other demands, failing

which they were to hold indefinite dharna, demonstration,

burning of effigies, etc. Copy of this notice was forwarded to

police officers. A perusal of the letter written by the

President and General Secretary of defendant No.2 to the

plaintiff company would show that defendant No.2 had also

decided to participate in the demonstration and dharna

which defendant No.1 organized on 11th May 2009. The

letter written by Mr. Hari Shankar, General Manager, Delhi

region of defendant No.3 shows that defendant No.3 union

had also decided to participate in the demonstration and

dharna organized by defendant No.1 for 11th May 2009. The

affidavit of Mr Sanjiv Kumar Taku shows that in the past

also, the defendant held violent demonstration, used

abusive language, blocked the ingress & egress and

manhandled the officers and staff of the plaintiff-company,

thereby posting imminent danger to their life and property.

6. It is well known that tempers run high when

demonstrations of such nature are organized by a union of

workers. It becomes really difficult to control the mob and

there is a serious apprehension of breach of peace and law

and order in case such demonstrations/dharnas are allowed

to be held in the vicinity of the factory where the workers

are employed. The property of the employer is usually made

a target during such demonstrations. The visitors and the

employees who do not support such demonstrations are

also targeted and manhandled, in order to prevent them

from entering to premises of its employer. The obvious

purpose is to put pressure on to employer, by resort to

unlawful and violent means, to give in to demand of the

Union. There is a strong likelihood of the property being

damaged, the visitors and those employees who do not side

with the Union being manhandled and obstructed during

their ingress to and agrees from the premises of the

employer, if such unlawful activities are allowed to be

undertaken. In fact the business of the employer and

functioning of its office and factory may come to a standstill,

unless appropriate preventive directions are issued to a

Union taking recourse to such methods. The personal safety

of the visitors, managers and other workers may also be in

jeopardy unless unlawful activities of this nature are

appropriately curbed.

7. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs,

the defendants No. 1&3 are hereby restrained from holding

any dharna, demonstration, gherao, etc. and shouting any

slogans etc. within the radius of 100 meters from the

registered office of the plaintiff company at 16, Community

Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058 its

corporate office at Panchwati, 82A, Sector 18, Gurgaon

(Haryana) as also at the residence of the Regional President

of the plaintiff company at Green Farm No.1, Rajokri, Near

Rajokri Red Light, New Delhi. They are further restrained

from preventing ingress to or egress from the above referred

premises in any manner. They will also not obstruct any

employee or any visitor from entering any of these premises

or coming out of them. As far as defendant No. 2 is

concerned, he will remain bound by the undertaking given

to the Court on 27th January 2011.

Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE FEBRUARY 17, 2011 Ag/bg