Alkem Laboratories Limited v. State of Kerala and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- ANIL K. NARENDRAN
- Judgment Date
- 2021-03-31
- Court Decision / Holding
- The court disposed of the writ petition by issuing directions to Station House Officers (SHOs) to ensure there is no threat to law and order in connection with protests by the 6th respondent’s members; to provide police protection to managers and employees if there is any life threat or obstruction during field visits; to act on such requests for protection without delay, with due regard to statutory provisions and controlling case law; to ensure cooperation with ongoing conciliation proceedings before the District Labour Officer; and to permit democratic protests that do not obstruct official duties. The Government Pleader is directed to communicate the outcome to the SHOs on the same day.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of with directions for police protection and ongoing conciliation; protests permitted democratically without obstructing official duties.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- ALKEM LABORATORIES LIMITED
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by Home Secretary
- District Police Chief, Malappuram
- Station House Officer, Manjeri Police Station
- Station House Officer, Perintalmanna Police Station
- Station House Officer, Kondotty Police Station
- Kerala Medical and Sales Representative Association (KMSRA) represented by its General Secretary Mohan C. Nair
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Benny P. Thomas
- • Sri. Thomas J. Anakkallunkal
- • Shri. Abel Tom Benny
- • Smt. Maria Paul
Counsels for Respondents
- • Government Pleader (for Respondents 1-5)
- • Sri. Jestin Mathew, Government Pleader (for Respondent 6)
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by Alkem Laboratories Limited, seeks mandamus relief to ensure adequate police protection and a peaceful working atmosphere for its managers, and protection of its property and products, from alleged interference by the 6th respondent association (KMSRA) and its members. The petition alleges that managers, during hospital visits, have faced obstruction, verbal abuse, and threats from the association’s members in large numbers, interfering with field visits and with the implementation of personnel transfers and terminations. Ext.P4, Ext.P6 and Ext.P8 police complaints were submitted to the Station House Officers (SHOs) of Manjeri, Perintalmanna and Kondotty to obtain protection, but the petitioner contends that effective protection has not materialized. The petition was admitted for hearing; Counsel for the petitioner submitted that conciliation proceedings are pending before the District Labour Officer, and that police protection is essential to safeguard the petitioner’s operations. The court references the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and constitutional guarantees, along with precedents including Lord Denning’s Due Process of Law and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Manohar Lal Sharma, Ankush Maruti Shinde, and Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., to emphasize police duty to protect life, liberty, and property, while recognizing the right to lawful, democratic protest. The judgment ultimately directs police protection where needed, requires cooperation with conciliation, and permits protests that do not obstruct official duties.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Due Process of Law (Lord Denning)
- Protection of life, liberty and property as police duty (Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary)
- Right to strike as part of collective bargaining (Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha)
- Part IV of the Constitution read with Article 19 (Industrial jurisprudence)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that the 6th respondent association’s members obstruct and threaten the company managers during field visits, including hospital visits, in relation to transfer and termination matters of medical representatives. The petitioner filed complaints (Ext.P4, P6, P8) seeking police protection. It asserts that conciliation proceedings pend before the District Labour Officer and that police protection is essential to prevent disturbances and ensure smooth functioning of business operations, as well as to safeguard employees and property. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel police action against threats and obstructions and to ensure a peaceful working environment, while acknowledging the right to democratic protests that do not impede official duties.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents argue that there is no concrete evidence of ongoing threats and that the situation is being managed within the framework of pending conciliation before the District Labour Officer. They submit that the 6th respondent association’s actions are not aimed at unlawful disruption and emphasize cooperation with conciliation proceedings. They contend that police protection should be provided only when there is a genuine threat to law and order and that any action must be in accordance with statutory provisions and due process. The Government Pleader notes that the court’s directions must balance the right to protest with safeguarding business operations and law and order, and that action should be taken promptly if threats materialize.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary | [(2014) 2 SCC 532] | Positive | Cited to support police duty to protect life, liberty and property. |
| Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra | [(2019) 15 SCC 470] | Positive | Cited to reiterate that police investigation aims to discover truth and protect rights. |
| Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha | [(1980) 2 SCC 593] | Positive | Cited to illustrate the right to strike as part of collective bargaining under lawful conditions. |
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 Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.