K. Yesodharan v. State of Kerala and others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.3846 OF 2021(E)** ## **PETITIONER:** **K. YESODHARAN AGED 62 YEARS S/O. KESAVAN, MANAGING PARTNER, RACHANA GRANITES AND CERAMICS, RACHANA, YEROOR P. O., ANCHAL P. O., KOLLAM.** **BY ADVS.** **SMT. SINDHU SANTHALINGAM SRI. ABRAHAM K. GEORGE SMT. JESSY S. SALIM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 607.** - **3 BALU INTUC, KEEZHAIKONAM, VENJARAMOODU - 695 607, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **4 SURESH INTUC, KEEZHAIKONAM, VENJARAMOODU - 695 607, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **5 ANISH INTUC, KEEZHAIKONAM, VENJARAMOODU - 695 607, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021 2 - **6 LABOUR OFFICER VENJARAMOODU - 695 607, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **7 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - ***ADDL. THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, R8 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE KAUSTHUBAM COMPLEX, CHENTHITTA, THIRUVANANTHAPUAM – 695 036.** ***ADDL.R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.02.2021 IN IA NO. 1/2021 IN WPC NO.3846/2021.** **SRI. SUNIL NATH N. B - GOVERNMENT PLEADER R8 - SRI. THOMAS ABRAHAM** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is a Managing Partner of Rachana Granites and Ceramics at Anchal, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police, Venjaramoodu Police Station to render necessary police protection to enable the petitioner to open and function its show room at Venjaramoodu. The petitioner has also sought for declaration that respondents 3 to 5 have no right to interfere and interrupt the petitioner's business at Venjaramoodu. In the writ petition, it is alleged that respondents 3 to 5 and the headload workers, who are members of their Union, are causing obstruction to the loading and unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint dated 01.02.2021 before the 2[nd] respondent seeking police protection and thereafter moved this writ petition before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 2. On 15.02.2001, when this writ petition came up for admission, the petitioner was directed to file an application to implead the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board as additional respondent. W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021 4 3. On 26.02.2021, this Court allowed I.A No.1 of 2021 filed by the petitioner and the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board was impleaded as additional 8[th] respondent. The learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1, 2, 6 and 7. The learned Standing Counsel took notice on admission for the additional 8[th] respondent. Urgent notice on admission was ordered to respondents 3 to 5 by speed post, returnable within three weeks. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions and file statement of the 2[nd] respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the additional 8[th] respondent submitted that the petitioner’s establishment is not situated in a scheme covered area. 4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2, 6 and 7 and the learned Standing Counsel for the additional 8[th] respondent. Despite service of notice none appears for respondents 3 to 5. 5. 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 W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021 5 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 with the law. 6. 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 W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021 6 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." 7. 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].** 8. 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 W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021 7 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 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. 9. In **Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998 (2)** W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021 8 **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 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 W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021 9 circumstances also which would justify grant of such direction in the facts of a particular case. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for the additional 8[th] respondent would submit that the petitioner's establishment is not situated in a scheme covered area. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the establishment of the petitioner is not in a scheme covered area, the petitioner is entitled to engage his own workers for loading and unloading activities in that establishment. Respondents 3 to 5 or the headload workers, who are members of their Union, have no legal right to cause any obstruction to the loading and unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment. 12. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that at present there is no law and order issues in the locality. 13. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- - (i) The 2nd 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 loading W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021 10 and unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment by engaging his own workers, at the instance of respondents 3 to 5 and the headload workers, who are the members of their Union. (ii) In case there is any threat to law and order in the locality or any threat to the life of the petitioner and his workers, from the side of respondents 3 to 5, in connection with any loading and unloading activities in the establishment in question, the petitioner shall move the 2[nd] respondent with a request for Police protection. (iii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. No order as to costs. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** SPR 11 W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31.01.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO.89/2021 DPN/VJD OBTAINED FROM THE POLICE STATION.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.**