M/S G4S Security Services (India) ... vs Group- 4Securicor Karamchari ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 2159 Del

$~8
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CS OS) 225/2010
                                      Decided on:29th March, 2012
       M/S G4S SECURITY
       SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD                       ..... Plaintiff

                         Through      : Mr. Sanjiv Bahl with
                                        Mr.Eklavya Bahl,
                                        Advocates


                             Versus

       GROUP- 4SECURICOR KARAMCHARI
       UNION AND ORS.                               ..... Defendants

                         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 office/ Delhi region office of the plaintiff, its Corporate

office and the residences of its Regional President Mr.David I

Hudson and Regional Managing Director Mrs. Rupal Sinha 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 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

as "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. Yet again new unions came up

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

No. 355/ 09 titled M/s G4S 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. Thereafter some more 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 CS (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 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 the new addresses, the plaintiff was

compelled to file Suit for Injunction before the Hon'ble High Court

of Delhi being CS (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.

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

and 2 started emerging. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 are 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 27 th,

January, 2010, which were totally illegal. On 3rd February, 2010

defendants gave a letter to the Regional President of the plaintiff

thereby threatening to hold a demonstration and dharna at the

office on 10th February, 2010 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 10 th

February, 2010 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, Delhi office and residences of the officers 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 defendant no. 2 appeared in

Court through its counsel on 2nd August, 2011. Despite

opportunities granted to defendants written statement was not filed,

inasmuch as, defendants stopped appearing and were proceeded ex-

parte on 17th January, 2012.

5. Plaintiff has led ex-parte evidence by filing 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 issued by

Registrar of Companies, National Capital Territory of Delhi and

Haryana has been proved as Ex. PW1/1. Copy of Original power of

attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of Shri Sanjeev Kumar

Taku has been proved as Ex. PW1/2. Copy of order dated 11 th

September, 2006 passed in CS (OS) No. 1746/2006 has been

proved as Ex. PW1/3. Copy of order dated 24th August, 2007

passed in CS (OS) No. 1555/2007 has been proved as Ex. PW1/4.

Copy of judgment dated 6th March, 2008 passed in CS (OS) No.

1555/2007 has been proved Ex. PW1/5. Copy of order dated 20 th

February, 2009 passed in CS (OS) No. 355/2009 has been proved

Ex. PW1/6. Copy of order dated 8th May, 2009 passed in CS (OS)

No.833/2009 has been proved as Ex. PW1/7. Copy of order dated

21st December, 2009 passed in CS (OS) No. 2438/2009 has been

proved as Ex. PW1/8. A copy of letter dated 27 thJanuary, 2010 of

defendant no.1 to the Managing Director of the plaintiff regarding

general demands of the defendants has been proved as Ex. PW1/9

and a copy of letter dated 3rd February, 2010 of defendant no.1,

thereby threatening the CEO of plaintiff to hold a

demonstration/dharna at the Corporate office of the plaintiff on 10 th

February, 2010 has been proved as Ex. PW1/10.

6. 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

residences of Mr.David I.Hudson, Regional President and Mrs.

Rupal Sinha, Regional Managing Director of the plaintiff.

7. 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.

8. 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.

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

supporters, workers are restrained from holding any demonstration,

dharnas, meeting, gherao, picketing as well as shouting slogans,

using abusive language 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 residences of Mr.David I. Hudson,

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

Light, New Delhi and Mrs. Rupal Sinha, Regional Managing

Director of the plaintiff at House no. 4652 P, Sector 23A, Gurgaon,

Haryana.. Defendants are further restrained from

preventing/blocking ingress or egress of employees, officers,

visitors etc. to the aforesaid premises of the plaintiff.

10. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

MARCH 29, 2012 ps