Full Judgment Text
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS OS) 225/2010
th
Decided on:29 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.
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 1 of 9
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
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 2 of 9
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
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 3 of 9
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.
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 4 of 9
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
th
peaceful solution. Defendants raised certain demands on 27 ,
rd
January, 2010, which were totally illegal. On 3 February, 2010
defendants gave a letter to the Regional President of the plaintiff
thereby threatening to hold a demonstration and dharna at the
th
office on 10 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
th
threatened to hold violent demonstrations and dharna from 10
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
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 5 of 9
nd
Court through its counsel on 2 August, 2011. Despite
opportunities granted to defendants written statement was not filed,
inasmuch as, defendants stopped appearing and were proceeded ex-
th
parte on 17 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
th
Taku has been proved as Ex. PW1/2. Copy of order dated 11
September, 2006 passed in CS (OS) No. 1746/2006 has been
th
proved as Ex. PW1/3. Copy of order dated 24 August, 2007
passed in CS (OS) No. 1555/2007 has been proved as Ex. PW1/4.
th
Copy of judgment dated 6 March, 2008 passed in CS (OS) No.
th
1555/2007 has been proved Ex. PW1/5. Copy of order dated 20
February, 2009 passed in CS (OS) No. 355/2009 has been proved
th
Ex. PW1/6. Copy of order dated 8 May, 2009 passed in CS (OS)
No.833/2009 has been proved as Ex. PW1/7. Copy of order dated
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 6 of 9
st
21 December, 2009 passed in CS (OS) No. 2438/2009 has been
th
proved as Ex. PW1/8. A copy of letter dated 27 January, 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
rd
and a copy of letter dated 3 February, 2010 of defendant no.1,
thereby threatening the CEO of plaintiff to hold a
th
demonstration/dharna at the Corporate office of the plaintiff on 10
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
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 7 of 9
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
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 8 of 9
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
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 9 of 9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS OS) 225/2010
th
Decided on:29 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.
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 1 of 9
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
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 2 of 9
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
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 3 of 9
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.
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 4 of 9
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
th
peaceful solution. Defendants raised certain demands on 27 ,
rd
January, 2010, which were totally illegal. On 3 February, 2010
defendants gave a letter to the Regional President of the plaintiff
thereby threatening to hold a demonstration and dharna at the
th
office on 10 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
th
threatened to hold violent demonstrations and dharna from 10
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
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 5 of 9
nd
Court through its counsel on 2 August, 2011. Despite
opportunities granted to defendants written statement was not filed,
inasmuch as, defendants stopped appearing and were proceeded ex-
th
parte on 17 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
th
Taku has been proved as Ex. PW1/2. Copy of order dated 11
September, 2006 passed in CS (OS) No. 1746/2006 has been
th
proved as Ex. PW1/3. Copy of order dated 24 August, 2007
passed in CS (OS) No. 1555/2007 has been proved as Ex. PW1/4.
th
Copy of judgment dated 6 March, 2008 passed in CS (OS) No.
th
1555/2007 has been proved Ex. PW1/5. Copy of order dated 20
February, 2009 passed in CS (OS) No. 355/2009 has been proved
th
Ex. PW1/6. Copy of order dated 8 May, 2009 passed in CS (OS)
No.833/2009 has been proved as Ex. PW1/7. Copy of order dated
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 6 of 9
st
21 December, 2009 passed in CS (OS) No. 2438/2009 has been
th
proved as Ex. PW1/8. A copy of letter dated 27 January, 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
rd
and a copy of letter dated 3 February, 2010 of defendant no.1,
thereby threatening the CEO of plaintiff to hold a
th
demonstration/dharna at the Corporate office of the plaintiff on 10
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
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 7 of 9
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
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 8 of 9
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
CS(OS) 225–2010 Page 9 of 9