Ajith C.K. v. District Police Chief, Circle Inspector of Police, Kerala Head Load Worker Welfare Board, CITU (Head Load Workers Union), INTUC (Head Load Workers Union)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L)** ## **PETITIONER:** **AJITH C.K. AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. SHIVADASAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHETTIYAM, THODUKA, RAROTH, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE 673 573** **BY ADVS. SRI.AMEER.K.M. SHRI.RAHMATHULLAH.M SHRI.ADEEB KAMAL P.N. SMT.AISWARYA RAVIKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF**| |---|---| ||**PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 001**| |**2**|**THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**KONGAD POLICE STATION,**| ||**PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 001**| |**3**|**THE CHAIRMAN,**| ||**KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKER WELFARE BOARD,**| ||**1ST FLOOR M A COMPLEX OPPOSITE TO KSEB,**| ||**T.B ROAD, PALAKKAD 678 014**| |**4**|**CITU (HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION)**| ||**KERALASSERY UNIT, KERALASSERY (PO),**| ||**PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 641**| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY SRI SAJIVAN**| WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L) 2 **5 INTUC (HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION) KERALASSERY UNNI, KEERALASSERY (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 641 INTUC OFFICE REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT SRI MURALI** **R1 BY SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADV. SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM R5 BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. R5 BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L) -3- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is engaged in cutting and selling of trees, had entered into Ext.P1 agreement dated 7.1.2021, with one K.C.Joseph and his son K.M.Jose for cutting and removing 1600 rubber trees from the properties referred to in that agreement situated in Keralassery Village, which is valid till 7.3.2021. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to render necessary and adequate police protection to undertake the work of cutting and transporting the trees without any hindrance and physical obstruction from respondents 4 and 5 and their men. 2. In the writ petition, it is alleged that though the area in question is not covered by the scheme under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983, the headload workers of respondents 4 and 5 unions are causing obstruction. Pointing out the said fact, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint dated 28.1.2021 before the 1[st] respondent District Police Chief, followed by Ext.P4 WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L) 4 complaint dated 27.1.2021 before the 2[nd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police, Kongad Police Station and thereafter, moved this writ petition before this Court, seeking the aforesaid relief. 3. On 4.2.2021 when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. The learned Standing Counsel took notice on admission for the 3[rd] respondent. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 4 and 5, returnable by 10.2.2021. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent submitted that the area in question is not a scheme covered area. Having considered the averments in the writ petition and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court granted an interim order on 4.2.2020 directing the 2[nd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police to take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of respondents 4 and 5 or their supporters. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5[th] WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L) 5 respondent, opposing the relief sought for in this writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent and also the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 4[th] respondent. 6. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation, powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter II of the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of the Act deals with general duties of Police. As per Section 3, the Police, as a service functioning category among the people as part of the administrative system shall, subject to the Constitution of India and the laws enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and protection of human rights. Section 4 of the Act deals with functions of Police. As per WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L) 6 Section 4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance with the law. 7. Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus; "In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, welltrained and well-disciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice. The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants." 8. In **Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary** **[(2014) 2 SCC 532]** the Apex Court held that, one of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L) 7 property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in **Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470]** . 9. In **Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha [(1980) 2 SCC 593]** the Apex Court held that, the right to unionise, the right to strike as part of collective bargaining and subject to the legality and humanity of the situation, the right of the weaker group viz. labour, to pressure the stronger party viz. capital, to negotiate and render justice, are processes recognised by industrial jurisprudence and supported by Social Justice. While society itself, in its basic needs of existence, may not be held to ransom in the name of the right to bargain and strikers must obey civilised norms in the battle and not be vulgar or violent hoodlums industry, represented by intransigent Managements, may well be made to reel into reason by the strike weapon and cannot then sequeal or wail and complain of loss of profits or WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L) 8 other ill-effects but must negotiate or get a reference made. The broad basis is that workers are weaker although they are the producers and their struggle to better their lot has the sanction of the rule of law. Unions and strikers are no more conspiracies than professions and political parties, are, and being far weaker, need succour. Part IV of the Constitution, read with Article 19, sows the seed of this burgeoning jurisprudence. The Gandhian quote at the beginning of the judgment [Para.5 @ Page 603 SCC] sets the tone of economic equity in industry. Of course, adventurist, extremist, extraneously inspired and puerile strike, absurdly insane persistence and violent or scorched earth policies boomerang and are anathema for the law. Within these parameters the right to strike is integral to collective bargaining. 10. In **Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998 (2) KLT 732]** , in the context of the Section 21 of of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 and Rule 15 of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, which deals with settlement of disputes, a Full Bench of this Court held that, the Act and the Rules provide for a machinery for settlement of disputes WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L) 9 between the employer and the worker. In the normal course, the dispute between the employer and the headload workers employed by him are to be settled in accordance with the machinery thus provided under the Statute, just like in the case of any other labour dispute being settled in accordance with the provisions contained under the relevant Statutes. But the fact that there is a machinery provided under the Act to settle the disputes between the parties cannot stand in the way of the employer seeking police protection when there is a law and order problem. When such an employer approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection of person and property of the employer as well as willing workers, this Court will be justified in granting direction to the police to give protection, if circumstances so warrant. One such consideration can be irreparable injury that would be suffered by the employer and/or the willing workers. There may be other circumstances also which would justify grant of such direction in the facts of a particular case. 11. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2[nd] respondent has WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L) 10 taken into custody the machineries used by the workers engaged by the petitioner for cutting and removing the trees covered by Ext.P1 agreement. Since the area is not a scheme covered area, the 2[nd] respondent shall be instructed appropriately to release those equipments. 12. From the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that the area in question is not a scheme covered area. If that be so, the headload workers, who are the members of respondents 4 and 5 unions have no legal right to claim the loading and unloading work undertaken by the petitioner, in connection with execution of Ext.P1 agreement. 13. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) The 2[nd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, in connection with the cutting and removing of trees, pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement, at the instance of the headload workers WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L) 11 ## under respondents 4 and 5 unions. ii) In case there is any obstruction to the cutting and removal of trees, pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement, it is for the petitioner to submit a proper request before the 2[nd] respondent seeking police protection, in which event, the 2[nd] respondent shall render necessary police protection to the petitioner and his workers, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. iii) In case the 2[nd] respondent has taken into custody the machineries used by the workers engaged by the petitioner for cutting and removing the trees covered by Ext.P1 agreement, he shall return the same, if there are no other legal impediments. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **JUDGE** **ab** WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L) 12 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE OPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 07-01-2021** **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED ON 28-01-2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P3** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT DATED 29-01-2021** **EXHIBIT P4** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-01-2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P5** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATION 29-01-2021** ## **RESONDENTS EXHIBITS:** **EXT.R5(A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE DEPONENT EXT.R5(B) COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.15.1.2021. EXT.R5(C) COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASST.LABOUR OFFICER (FIRST CIRCLE), . PALAKKAD.**