M/S G4S Security Services(India) ... vs M/S Group 4 Staff Karamchari ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 5577 Del

$~33
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CS(OS) 355/2009
                                  Decided on: 18th November, 2011
       M/S G4S SECURITY
       SERVICES(INDIA) PVT LTD               ..... Plaintiff
                     Through   : Mr. Ajay Shekhar, Adv.

                              Versus

       M/S GROUP 4 STAFF KARAMCHARI
       WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.               ..... Defendants
                     Through : Ex-Parte.

Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

       1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
          may be allowed to see the judgment?                 No

       2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                  No

       3. Whether the judgment should be
          reported in the Digest?                            No


A.K. PATHAK, J. (ORAL)

1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction and

prayed that defendants, their office bearers, members, agents,

supporters, workers etc. be restrained from shouting slogans,

holding dharnas, demonstrations, meetings, creating nuisance,

obstruction, using abusive language, picketing, intimidating etc.

within the radius of 100 meters from the gates/boundary wall of the

registered office of the plaintiff, its corporate office and the

residence of its Regional President Mr. David I Hudson and also

from blocking the ingress and egress of the plaintiff's employees,

officers, staff, workers, visitors and vehicles in any manner to the

aforesaid premises.

2. It is alleged in the plaint that plaintiff is a private limited

company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.

Plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by Shri Sanjeev

Kumar Takru, who is duly authorized to do so. Plaintiff is one of

the largest security companies and is engaged in the business of

providing security and other services to its clients. Plaintiff is

having large number of employees. It is alleged that during the

past few years some disgruntled employees of the plaintiff started

indulging in labor union activities with ulterior motives in order to

disrupt the industrial peace and harmony of the plaintiff. Various

labor unions, in order to fulfill their illegitimate demands, started

enrolling the employees of plaintiff. Certain employees, in

connivance with the trade unions, started blocking the ingress and

egress of other employees, inasmuch as, threatened to demonstrate

in front of the offices and residences of the management. Plaintiff

was compelled to file a suit for injunction being CS(OS)

No.1746/2006 titled "M/s. G4S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

vs. M/s. Group 4 Securicor Workers Union (Regd.) and Ors". In

the said suit an interim injunction was passed thereby restraining

the defendants therein from picketing within 100 meters from the

gates of offices and residences of officers of plaintiff at the places

as mentioned in the plaint; from blocking the ingress and egress of

the plaintiff and its staff and workers. Thereafter some new unions

came up and refused to abide by the said order forcing the plaintiff

to file another suit for injunction being CS (OS) No. 1555/07 titled

"M/S. G4S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/S. Group 4

Securicor Mazdoor Union and Others". In the said suit also, an

interim injunction was passed

3. Thereafter, some more unions including defendant nos. 1

and 2 started emerging. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 were not even

recognized by the plaintiff. However, in the interest of

organization and employees, plaintiff negotiated with them for

peaceful solution. Defendants raised certain demands on 29th

January, 2009, which were totally illegal. On 11th February, 2009

defendant no. 2 gave a letter to the Regional President of the

plaintiff thereby threatening to hold a demonstration and dharna at

his residence on 24th February, 2009 and had further threatened to

intensify the agitation. Plaintiff had tried to settle the dispute

amicably and had even informed about the injunction orders passed

by this Court in the other suits. Despite all this, defendants

threatened to hold violent demonstrations and dharna from 24th

February, 2009 onwards. Defendants and their executives, office

bearers and members threatened that they shall have a mammoth

gathering, procession, dharna and demonstrations in front of the

regional office, corporate office and residence of Regional

President and will stop the work of the plaintiff by blocking ingress

and egress of the officers and other employees of the plaintiff.

4. After the service of summons defendants appeared in Court

through their counsel on 8th February, 2010. Despite opportunities

granted to them written statement was not filed, inasmuch as,

defendants stopped appearing and were proceeded ex-parte on 21st

December, 2010.

5. Plaintiff has led ex-parte evidence by filing affidavit of Shri

Sanjeev Kumar Takru. In this affidavit plaintiff has supported the

averments made in the plaint, which have been reproduced in brief

hereinabove. Original power of attorney executed by the plaintiff

in favour of Shri Sanjeev Kumar Takru has been proved as PW1/1.

Certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff issued by Registrar of

Companies, National Capital Territory of Delhi and Haryana has

been proved as PW1/2. Certified copies of orders dated 11 th

September, 2006, 6th October, 2006 and 17th August, 2007 passed

in CS(OS) No. 1746/2006 have been proved as Ex. PW1/3 to Ex.

PW1/5. Certified copies of plaint in CS (OS) No. 1555/2007, order

dated 24th August, 2007 and judgment dated 26th March, 2008 have

been exhibited as PW1/6 to PW1/8. Copies of letters dated 13 th

and 29th January, 2009 issued by the defendants have been proved

as PW1/9 and PW1/10. A copy of letter dated 11 th February, 2009

of the defendant no. 2, thereby threatening the Regional President

of plaintiff to hold a demonstration/dharna at his residence on 24 th

February, 2009, has been proved as Ex. PW1/11.

6. The testimony of plaintiff's witness has remained

unchallenged, in as much as, defendants have failed to controvert

the allegations as contained in the plaint and the affidavit of PW1.

7. From the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, in my view, it

has succeeded in proving that defendants have been indulging in

illegal activities, that is, threatening to hold dharnas,

demonstrations, meetings, creating nuisance, obstruction, shouting

slogans, picketing, intimidating etc. to put pressure on the plaintiff

to meet their illegitimate demands. It has also come in evidence

that defendants have threatened to hold demonstrations/dharnas at

the registered office, corporate office and the residence of Mr.

David I Hudson, Regional President of the plaintiff.

8. Indubitably, employees and unions of workers have a right

to demonstrate for the purpose of achieving their legitimate

demands, but at the same time they do not have any right to use

abusive language or commit violence or prevent ingress and egress

of other employees, officers, visitors of such organization.

Members of the unions can use legitimate means to achieve their

legitimate demands but they cannot use illegal or illegitimate

means to achieve any of their demands whether legitimate or

illegitimate. It is a matter of common knowledge that tempers run

high when demonstrations of such nature are organized by

worker's union. Sometimes it becomes difficult to control the mob

and there is always apprehension of breach of peace and law and

order in case such demonstrations, dharnas are allowed to be held

in the vicinity of the premises of the organization where the

workers are employed. Even the property of the employer

becomes a target during such demonstrations/dharnas. The

employees and officers who are willing to work, as also the visitors

are targeted and manhandled in order to prevent them from

entering in the premises of such an organization. Unless such

unlawful activities are curbed, personal safety of employees,

officers and visitors may get jeopardized.

9. I am of the view that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving

its case as set out in the plaint and is entitled to a decree of

permanent injunction as prayed for.

10. For the foregoing reasons, defendants, their members and

supporters are restrained from holding any demonstration, dharnas,

meeting, gherao, as well as shouting slogans, using abusive

language within the radius of 100 meters from the registered office

of the plaintiff at 16, Community Centre, C Block, Janak Puri, New

Delhi - 110058, corporate office of the plaintiff at Panchwati, 82A,

Sector 18, Gurgaon (Haryana) and residence of Mr. David I

Hudson, Regional President of the plaintiff at Green Farm No.1,

Rajokri, Near Rajokri Red Light, New Delhi. Defendants are

further restrained from preventing/blocking ingress or egress of

employees, officers, visitors etc. to the aforesaid premises of the

plaintiff.

11. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

NOVEMBER 18, 2011/ rb