ALKEM LABORATORIES LIMITED v. STATE OF KERALA
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- ANIL K. NARENDRAN
- Judgment Date
- 2021-03-31
- Court Decision / Holding
- This writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) Respondents 3 to 5 SHOs shall take necessary steps to ensure no threat to law and order in connection with protests by the 6th respondent association; ii) If there is any threat to life or obstruction to field visits, the petitioner shall approach SHOs with a proper request for police protection, and the SHOs shall act without delay; iii) On such requests, the SHOs shall take necessary action in accordance with statutory provisions and the decisions cited above; iv) The petitioner shall cooperate with conciliation proceedings before the District Labour Officer, and any objections to maintainability shall be addressed appropriately; v) The judgment does not prevent democratic protests, provided they do not obstruct the discharge of official duties. The Government Pleader shall communicate the outcome to the SHOs today.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of with directions
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- ALKEM LABORATORIES LIMITED
Respondents
- STATE OF KERALA represented by Home Secretary, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
- DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, SH 16, POWER HOUSE, ALUVA-683101
- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION, NEDUMBASSERY-683111
- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ALUVA POLICE STATION, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA-683101
- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARAVOOR, NORTH PARAVUR-683513
- KRALA MEDICAL AND REPRESENTATIVE ASSOOCIATION (KMSRA), BTR BHAWAN, CEMENTERY JUNCTION, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682018
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • BENNY P.THOMAS
- • SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
- • SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY
- • SMT.MARIA PAUL
Counsels for Respondents
- • SRI.JESTIN MATHEW
Case Synopsis & Summary
Alkem Laboratories Ltd filed this Article 226 writ petition seeking a mandamus to the State of Kerala and police authorities to ensure protection for its business operations and managers against obstruction by the KRALA Medical and Representative Association (6th respondent). The petition alleges that association members obstruct managers during field visits to hospitals, assemble in large numbers, abuse and threaten personnel, and seek re-transfer/termination of medical representatives. The petitioner submitted police complaints Ext.P2 (01.03.2021), Ext.P3 (03.03.2021) and Ext.P5 (04.03.2021) to the Station House Officers seeking protection and action against illegal activities, and subsequently moved the Court for relief. The Government Pleader defended the position of the police and highlighted pending conciliation before the District Labour Officer, arguing that protection would be provided if law and order were threatened. The judgment references the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (Chapter II; Sections 3 and 4) and cites authorities underscoring the police’s duty to protect life and property, and maintain peace. It also invokes Lord Denning’s Due Process of Law, and Supreme Court rulings (Manohar Lal Sharma; Ankush Maruti Shinde; Gujarat Steel Tubes) to justify police protection and labour rights within lawful limits. The Court disposes of the petition with directions balancing protection and democratic rights to protest. It clarifies that conciliation must proceed and that protests must not obstruct official duties.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Due Process of Law (Lord Denning)
- Right to unionise and right to strike as part of collective bargaining
- Right to life, liberty and property protected by police action (Manohar Lal Sharma)
- Economic equity in industry as part of Gandhian/social justice discourse (Gujarat Steel Tubes)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that 6th respondent association and its members obstruct Managers from performing field visits, threaten staff, and disrupt transfers/terminations of personnel. It seeks police protection and action on complaints, withdrawal of orders affecting staff, and a direction to respond to complaints. The Management asserts it has complied with relevant procedures and will cooperate with conciliation before the District Labour Officer. It submitted written submissions before the Labour Officer and argues that police protection is necessary to safeguard life, liberty and property, while balancing workers’ rights.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that disputes with the 6th respondent are undergoing conciliation before the District Labour Officer, and that the Association’s actions do not constitute an imminent threat; they emphasize the state’s duty to maintain order and to act on police protection only when warranted. If threats arise, they direct that the concerned Station House Officers render protection under statutory provisions and existing law. They also acknowledge the petitioner’s right to peaceful, democratic protest, provided it does not obstruct public duties.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary | [(2014) 2 SCC 532] | Positive | Cited as authority for police responsibility to protect life, liberty and property and to assist in investigation, supporting the petitioner's request for protection. |
| Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra | [(2019) 15 SCC 470] | Positive | Cited to reiterate the principle of police protection and the role of law in protecting rights during investigations and labour disputes. |
| Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha | [(1980) 2 SCC 593] | Positive | Cited to support the view that the right to unionise and engage in collective bargaining, including strikes within lawful bounds, is recognized. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against ALKEM LABORATORIES LIMITED v. STATE OF KERALA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.