Jameela Beevi v. District Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kollam; Station House Officer, Chadayamangalam Police Station; Kerala State Head Load Workers Fund Board; Nagoorkhani

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.27828 OF 2020(C)** ## **PETITIONER:** **JAMEELA BEEVI AGED 40 YEARS W/O. SAINULABDEEN, PROPRIETOR, SS AGENCIES, KARALIKONAM, ELAMADU VILLAGE, ARKKANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL) KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506.** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691 534.** **3 THE CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE HEAD LOAD WORKERS FUND BOARD, KOLLAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, USHAS BUILDING, NEAR STONE BRIDGE, CHAMAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001.** - **4 NAGOORKHANI** - **S/O. UTHUMAN KANNU RAWTHER, (CONVENER INTUC), PEZHU VEEDU, KARALIKONAM, ARKKANNOOR PO, KOLLAM-691 533.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.SIJU** **SMT A.C.VIDHYA - GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C)No.27828 of 2020 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is conducting cement dealership, namely, 'SS Agencies', covered by Ext.P1 GST registration and Ext.P2 licence issued by Elamadu Grama Panchayat, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the functioning of the petitioner's firm 'SS Agencies', Karalikonam, without being obstructed in any manner either by the 4[th] respondent or any other persons engineered by him. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life of the workers and the men attached to the petitioner's firm, without being obstructed in any manner either by the 4[th] respondent or any other persons engineered by him; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take action pursuant to Exts.P3 and P5 petitions forthwith. The grievance of the petitioner is against the obstruction caused by the headload workers headed by the 4[th] respondent. 2. On 14.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for WP(C)No.27828 of 2020 3 admission, this Court issued notice before admission to the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 3[rd] respondent. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to the 4[th] respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent submitted that the concern of the petitioner is not situated in an area where the functional operation of the scheme has been extended. Having regard to the submissions advanced, this Court granted an interim order directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford effective and adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and the workers attached to the petitioner's firm, without being obstructed in any fashion either by the 4[th] respondent or any other persons engineered by him, for a period of three weeks. The said interim order, which was extended on 04.01.2021, is still in force. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Headload Workers Fund Board, representing the 3[rd] respondent. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 4[th] respondent. WP(C)No.27828 of 2020 4 4. 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 of all persons in accordance WP(C)No.27828 of 2020 5 ## with the law. 5. 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, well-trained 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." 6. 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)** WP(C)No.27828 of 2020 6 ## **15 SCC 470]** . 7. 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 WP(C)No.27828 of 2020 7 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. 8. 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 WP(C)No.27828 of 2020 8 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. 9. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that, as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent on 14.12.2020, the petitioner's concern is situated in an area, which is not covered by the functional operation of the Scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and WP(C)No.27828 of 2020 9 Welfare) Scheme, 1983. In such circumstances, the headload workers under the 4[th] respondent cannot insist that they should be engaged in loading and unloading activities in the establishment. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent would submit that, as pointed out on 14.12.2020, the area in question is not a scheme covered area. 11. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer, would submit that, on the basis of the interim order granted by this Court, the 2[nd] respondent rendered necessary police protection to the petitioner and at present there is no law and order problem. The Assistant Labour Officer, Chadayamangalam has already initiated conciliation proceedings, which is in progress. 12. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; (i) In case there is any obstruction to the loading and unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment, at the instance of the 4[th] respondent or WP(C)No.27828 of 2020 10 the workers of his Union, the petitioner shall approach the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer with a request for police protection. (ii) On receipt of such request for police protection, the 2[nd] respondent shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision thereon, taking note of the statutory provisions referred hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. (iii) The 2[nd] respondent shall also take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to the law and order in the locality, at the instance of the 4[th] respondent or his workers. The petitioner and also the 4[th] respondent shall cooperate with the conciliation proceedings, which is now pending before the Assistant Labour Officer, Chadayamangalam. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** **yd** WP(C)No.27828 of 2020 11 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SYSTEM GENERATED GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE VIDE REGISTRATION NUMBER 32AHKPJ0529LIZE.** **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FTE & O LICENSE ISSUED BY THE ELAMADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT.** **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3.10.2020 FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT.** **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT BY EMAIL DATED 24.10.2020 TO THE IST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT BY EMAIL DATED 30.11.2020 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE**