CS(OS) 355 – 2009 Page 1 of 8 $~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, CS(OS) 355 – 2009 Page 2 of 8 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 CS(OS) 355 – 2009 Page 3 of 8 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 CS(OS) 355 – 2009 Page 4 of 8 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 CS(OS) 355 – 2009 Page 5 of 8 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 11th 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 13th and 29th January, 2009 issued by the defendants have been proved as PW1/9 and PW1/10. A copy of letter dated 11th February, 2009 of the defendant no. 2, thereby threatening the Regional President of plaintiff to hold a demonstration/dharna at his residence on 24th 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. CS(OS) 355 – 2009 Page 6 of 8 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 CS(OS) 355 – 2009 Page 7 of 8 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 CS(OS) 355 – 2009 Page 8 of 8 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