Delhi High Court
M/S G4S Security Services (India) ... vs G 4S Krantikari Karamchari Union on 29 March, 2012
Author: A. K. Pathak
$~16
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1746/2011
Decided on: 29th March, 2012
M/S G4S SECURITY
SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr.Sanjiv Bahl, with
Mr. Eklavya Bahl,
Advocates
Versus
G 4S KRANTIKARI KARAMCHARI
UNION ..... Defendant
Through : Ex-Parte.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
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/ regional office
of the plaintiff, its corporate office and the residence of its Regional
Managing Director Mr. Neil Prasad 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 Taku,
who is duly authorized to do so. Plaintiff is one of the largest security
service 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 C.S. (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 started emerging. Plaintiff was
compelled to file a suit for injunction being C. S. (OS) No. 355/ 09
titled M/s G4 Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Group 4 Staff
Karamchari Welfare Association & Ors. In the said suit also
injunction was granted thereby restraining the defendants from
holding any demonstrations. Yet again new unions came up, who
refused to abide by the said order being not against them, the plaintiff
company was constrained to file Suit for Injunction before the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi being C.S. (OS) No. 833/2009 titled as
M/s G4S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Group-4, Securicor
Employees Welfare Association & Ors. In the said suit defendants
were restrained from holding any demonstrations within 25mts from
the gates of the offices and holding any demonstration within 100
mtrs at the residences of officers of the plaintiff at the places
mentioned in the plaint thereof. That again the certain unions gave
notice for the demonstrations for the new addresses of the plaintiff
company and refused to abide by the said order being not for new
addresses, the plaintiff was compelled to file Suit for Injunction
before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi being C.S. (OS) No. 2438/09
titled as M/s G4S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Group4
Flack Employees Union (Regd.). In the said suit Interim Injunction
was granted thereby restraining the defendants from holding
demonstration within 50mtrs from the gates of the offices at places
mentioned in the plaint and further from blocking ingress and egress
of the plaintiff and its staff and workers. Again in the suit for
Injunction being C.S. (OS) No.2157/10 titled as M/s G4S Security
Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s. G4S Trade Union Manch & Ors, an
interim injunction thereby restraining the defendants from holding
demonstration within 50mtrs from gates of the offices at places as
mentioned in the plaint was granted.
4. Defendant union has now started emerging and in order to
show their strength and presence defendant and their office bearers
and members have been putting pressure on plaintiff for acceding to
their illegal demand including granting illegal promotion of its
members. The said union is not even recognized by the plaintiff.
5. Defendant has threatened to hold a demonstration and dharna
at the offices on 25th July, 2011 and further threatened to intensify the
agitation. Defendants and their executives, office bearers and
members have also threatened that they shall have mammoth
gathering, procession, dharna and demonstration in front of its
Regional office, Delhi office and residences of the officers.
Defendant has also threatened that they will completely stop the work
of the plaintiff, stop ingress and egress, gherao the officers of the
plaintiff and other staff and hold violent demonstration and dharna
from 25th July, 2011 onwards.
6. However, in the interest of organization and employees,
plaintiff has been trying to amicably settle the disputes but to no
results.
7. Vide order dated 11th January, 2012 defendants were served by
way of affixation of notice at conspicuous place of defendant's
office premises. Accordingly, defendant was proceeded against ex-
parte.
8. Plaintiff has led ex-parte evidence by filing the affidavit of Shri
Sanjeev Kumar Taku. In this affidavit plaintiff has supported the
averments made in the plaint, which have been reproduced in brief
hereinabove. Certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff Company
issued by Registrar of Companies, National Capital Territory of
Delhi and Haryana which has been proved as Ex. PW1/1. A
photocopy of Original power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in
favour of Shri Sanjeev Kumar Taku has been proved as Ex. PW1/2.
Certified copy of order dated 24thAugust, 2007 passed in CS (OS) No.
1555/2007 has been proved as Ex. PW1/3. Certified copy of judgment
dated 26th March, 2008 passed in CS (OS) No. 1555/2007 has been
proved as Ex. PW1/4. Certified copy of order dated 20th February,
2009 passed in CS (OS) No. 355/2009 has been proved as Ex. PW1/5.
Certified copy of Order dated 8thMay, 2009 and judgment dated 17th
February, 2011passed in CS (OS) No. 833/2009 have been proved as
Ex. PW1/6 and PW1/7. Certified copy of Order dated 21st December,
2009 passed in CS (OS) No. 2438/2009 has been proved Ex.
PW1/8. Certified copy of Order dated 9th February, 2010 passed
in CS (OS) No. 225/2010 has been proved Ex. PW1/9. Copy of Order
dated 25th October, 2010 passed in CS(OS) No.2157/2010 has been
proved as Ex. PW 1/10. Copy of letter dated 13 th July, 2011of the
defendant thereby threatening the Managing Director of plaintiff to
hold a demonstration/dharna at Registered office/ Delhi Region office
on 25thJuly, 2011 has been proved as Ex. PW1/11.
9. 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.
10. 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/ Delhi Region Office, Corporate Office and the residence of
Mr. Neil Prasad, Regional Managing Director of the plaintiff.
11. 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 workers' 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.
12. 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.
13. For the foregoing reasons, defendants, their members and
supporters, workers etc are restrained from holding any
demonstration, dharnas, meeting, gherao, as well as shouting slogans,
using abusive language, picketing etc. within the radius of 100
meters from the Registered Office/ Delhi Region 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. Neil Prasad, Regional
Managing Director of the plaintiff at Prithvi Farm, Silver Oak Lane,
Satbadi, Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074. Defendant is further
restrained from preventing/blocking ingress or egress of employees,
officers, visitors etc. to the aforesaid premises of the plaintiff.
14. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
MARCH 29, 2012
ps
