CS(OS) No.83 of 2008 Page 1 of 5 UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) No.83/2008 Date of Decision: March 13, 2009 INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY .... Plaintiff Through Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate VERSUS M/S SPICK & SPAN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. & ORS ..... Defendants Through Defendants ex parte. CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. This suit by the plaintiff, namely, Indira Gandhi National Open University is for a decree of permanent injunction against defendants No.3 to 6 from organizing or leading any mob in picketing, gheraoing, demonstrating, putting lock on gate and/or putting up tent, shamiana, loud speakers, mike etc., in front of the main entrance of the Maidan Garhi Campus, New Delhi. The facts relevant for the disposal of the suit are as under:- The plaintiff is a university established under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985. It imparts education through distant learning and reaches out to students, not only across the CS(OS) No.83 of 2008 Page 2 of 5 length and breadth of our own country but also in foreign countries. It has its Central Headquarter at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi which acts as a nerve centre for coordinating the functions of various regional centers. The Campus is spread over an area of 151.32 acres and about 800 officials are working there. In view of the magnitude of the area in which the Campus is housed and the number of employees working there, the plaintiff requires considerable manpower for carrying out housekeeping services including cleaning and sanitation. In the year 2004, the plaintiff outsourced the work of cleaning and sanitation by awarding a contract to defendant No.2 M/s Sybex Computer Systems (P) Ltd. The said Contractor employed about 70 sweepers and cleaners for carrying out its contractual obligation. The workers so employed were the employees of the Contractor and the plaintiff did not play any role in their appointment, nor it had any obligation towards them. The contract between defendant No.2 and its employees subsisted till the year 2007. Thereafter, on November 01, 2007 the plaintiff awarded the contract to defendant No.1, namely M/s Spick & Span Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. The said defendant initially retained the services of 65 out of 70 sweepers who were employed with defendant No.2 but subsequently dispensed with their services as they resorted to agitation and extended threats to the Director of defendant No.1. About two months after the termination of the services of the workers of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1, they along with a mob of around 200 persons sat on dharna outside the gate of Maidan Garhi campus of the plaintiff under the banners of defendants No.3 & 5, i.e. Indian Justice Party and Trade Union for Justice respectively. They demanded reinstatement of the workers and forcibly tried to enter the gate of the CS(OS) No.83 of 2008 Page 3 of 5 campus. The situation would have turned riotous, had the police not been called for assistance. The plaintiff in order to diffuse the situation called defendants No.4 & 6, namely, Dr. Udit Raj and Mr. V.P.Singh respectively who were the mob leaders and tried to explain to them that none of the workers were appointed by the plaintiff and, therefore, there was no question of their reinstatement by the university. It was also explained to them that the cleaners/sweepers, if at all, were the employees of defendant No.2 and that so far as the plaintiff is concerned, it had already entered into a fresh contract with defendant No.1 but they not only refused to see reason but also threatened to reassemble at the university gate with a view to block the ingress and egress of the university employees. Such defiant attitude on the part of defendants No.2 to 6 led the plaintiff to file the present suit along with an application being I.A. No.570 of 2008 on which an ad-interim order was passed restraining defendants No.2 to 6 from picketing, gheraoing or demonstrating in the vicinity of the plaintiff’s premises. Despite service of summons, none appeared for defendants No.1 & 2. In so far as defendants No.3 to 6 are concerned, they did appear in response to the summons and even filed written statement, but subsequent thereto they too absented from the proceedings. Hence, by order dated January 19, 2009 all the defendants were proceeded against ex parte. In the written statement filed by defendants No.3 to 6, it is stated that the persons employed by defendant No.2 were the employees of the University and in support, reference was made to the attendance register and salary/wages register. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement and therein disputed the stand of CS(OS) No.83 of 2008 Page 4 of 5 defendants No.3 to 6. In any case, because of the absence of the defendants consequent to the filing of the written statement, no evidence was led in support of the averments made in the written statement and the same, therefore, are of no consequence. The plaintiff, on the other hand, filed affidavit by way of evidence, signed and sworn by its Registrar, namely, Shri U.S.Tolia who reiterated on oath the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff also placed and proved on record agreement dated November 01, 2004 which it had entered into with defendant No.2. The same is Ex.PW1/1. As per the agreement, the persons deployed by the Contractor at no time were to be treated as employees of the university and they were to have no claim against the University for regularization of their services. It was also a term of the agreement that the persons deployed by the Contractor were not to indulge in criminal activities, malpractices or undesirable acts and if they did, they were to be dealt with under the provisions of law. In view of what has been noticed above, particularly, the terms of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.2, the workers employed by defendant No.2 cannot be held to be the employees of the plaintiff and consequently, they cannot claim or seek any benefit from the plaintiff. The agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 having come to an end, the persons employed by defendant No.2 ceased to have any connection whatsoever with the plaintiff. Accordingly, I hold that the agitation resorted to by the defendants was uncalled for, illegal and without any justification. Hence, I pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.3 to 6 from organizing or leading any mob in CS(OS) No.83 of 2008 Page 5 of 5 picketing, gheraoing, demonstrating, putting lock on gate and/or putting up tent, shamiana, loud speakers, mike etc. in front of the main entrance of the Maidan Garhi Campus, New Delhi of the plaintiff- university. Decree-sheet be drawn. REKHA SHARMA, J. MARCH 13, 2009 ka