Aravindakshan Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 17TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.6 OF 2020(A)** ## **PETITIONER :** **ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI AGED 52 YEARS** **S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, SREEPADAM, VADAKKE MURI, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 690 520.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.SOORANAD S.SREEKUMAR SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY SMT.G.SAVITHA SRI.M.M.SHAJAHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS :** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, KOLLAM - 691 013.** - **2 THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOLLAM (RURAL), KOTTARAKKARA - 691 506.** - **3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SOORANADU POLICE STATION, SOORANADU P. O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 561.** - **4 RAJU K., AGED 55 YEARS CHARUVILA PUTHAN VEEDU, PORUVAZHY VADAKKE MURI, CHATHAKULAM, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 520.** - **5 SHAJI S., AGED 54 YEARS KUMPALAM THADATHIL, PORUVAZHY VADAKKE MURI, CHATHAKULAM, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 520.** - **6 VIJAYAN P. AGED 57 YEARS MULA BHAVANAM, PORUVAZHY VADAKKE MURI, CHATHAKULAM, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 520.** WP(C).No.6 OF 2020(A) 2 ***ADDL. R7 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682018.** **ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13/01/2020 IN I.A.NO.1/2020.** **R1 TO 3 BY SRI P.P.THAJUDHEEN - SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.M.KIRANLAL R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.SARATH R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) R4-6 BY ADV. SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR R7 BY SRI.SIJU K., SC, KHWWB** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0110-2020, THE COURT ON 09-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.6 OF 2020(A) 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of stocking and sale of tiles and granites under the name and style Choice Tiles and Granites at Giripuram, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police, Sooranad Police Station to afford sufficient and effective police protection to his life and industry. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to consider and take an appropriate action on Exts.P1 and P2 complaints made by the petitioner, forthwith, in accordance with law. 2. In the writ petition, it is alleged that, respondents 4 to 6, who are local residents and manual labourers, have demanded employment as loading and unloading workers in the unit of the petitioner and when the petitioner expressed his unwillingness, they demanded union fess for the loading and unloading work done by the employees engaged by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 complaint dated 12.12.2019 before the 3[rd] respondent, WP(C).No.6 OF 2020(A) 4 Circle Inspector of Police, Sooranadu, which was followed by Ext.P2 complaint before the 2[nd] respondent District Superintendent of Police, Kollam (Rural). 3. On 06.01.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice to respondents 4 to 6 by special messenger and the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. 4. By the order dated 13.01.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020, the Chief Executive Officer of Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board was impleaded as the additional 7[th] respondent. 5. A statement has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the additional 7[th] respondent, in which it has been stated that the area of operation of the petitioner's business establishment is not a scheme implemented area as per the Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the WP(C).No.6 OF 2020(A) 5 additional 7[th] respondent. 7. 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 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 WP(C).No.6 OF 2020(A) 6 of all persons in accordance with the law. 8. 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." ## 9. 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 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]** . WP(C).No.6 OF 2020(A) 7 10. 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 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 WP(C).No.6 OF 2020(A) 8 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. 11. 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 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 WP(C).No.6 OF 2020(A) 9 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. 12. From the statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the additional 7[th] respondent, it is seen that the area in question is not a scheme implemented area as per the Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme. In such circumstances, there is no legal impediment in the petitioner engaging his own workers for loading and unloading activities, in case he is conducting that establishment after obtaining necessary licence, WP(C).No.6 OF 2020(A) 10 permission/consent from the statutory authorities. 13. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that in case of any threat or obstruction caused by respondents 4 to 6 to the loading and unloading activities of the petitioner's establishment, the 3[rd] respondent shall render necessary police assistance. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to move the 3[rd] respondent seeking Police protection, in case any obstruction is caused to the loading and unloading operations of the petitioner's establishment by respondent 4 to 6. In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioner, the 3[rd] respondent shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to hereinbefore. No order as to costs. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/09/10 WP(C).No.6 OF 2020(A) 11 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CIRCLE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOORANAD DATED 12.12.2019.** **EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DATED 19.12.2019.** **EXHIBIT P3** **PHOTOCOPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH SECRETARY TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 11.4.2019.** **EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYEES, ISSUED BY THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT DATED 11.12.2019.**