K.R. Bijimon v. Commissioner of Police and Others; Muthoot Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.33916 OF 2019(L)** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **K.R.BIJIMON,** **CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD, MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, OPP SARITHA THEATRE COMPLEX, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 018.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ABDUL KALAM MARG, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** - **2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ABDUL KALAM MARG, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** - **3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 018.** - **4 NON BANKING AND PRIVATE FINANCE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CITU), EMS SMARAKA MANDIRAM, KALABHAVAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH - 682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.** **5 ADDL.R5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **6 ADDL.R6. THE HOME SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 2 **7 ADDL.R7. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KERALA STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695010. ADDL.R5 TO R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06/01/2020 IN I.A.NO.1/2020.** **R1-R3, R5-7 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN,GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.) R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY(ERNAKULAM)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).602/2020(A), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.602 OF 2020(A)** ## **PETITIONER:** **MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD., MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, OPPOSITE SARITHA THEATRE COMPLEX, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 018** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN SMT.NISHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010** - **3 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SOUTH ZONE, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033** - **4 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, NADAKKAVU , NADAKKAVU, CALICUT-673 011** - **5 NON-BAKING AND PRIVATE FINANCE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION(CITU) EMS SMARAKA MANDIRAM, KALABHAVAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH-6982 018, REPRESENTED BY IS GENERAL SECRETARY** - **6 CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNION (CITU) KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, E.BALANANDAN MEMORIAL BUILDING, THAMPANOOR,** WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 4 **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **7 ADDL.R7** **SHINU CHACKO AGED 46 YEARS, S/O CHACKO, KARIMATRA, AYUR P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** - **8 ADDL.R8** **VINAYAKUMAR S., V.V.COTTAGE, CHERUVAKKAL P.O, AYUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT 9 ADDL.R9** **GEORGEKUTTY, KADAYIL PUTHUVEEDU, MAVADI P.O, PUVATHOOR, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 10 ADDL.R10** **MANUKUMAR, MAYA BHAVAN, MANAKKARA.P.O, SAASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT 11 ADDL.R11** **SUSHA M.S, SINDHU BHAVAN, PULAMAN, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT** **ADDL R7 TO R11 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2020 DATED 09.02.2021 R1-4 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY(ERNAKULAM) R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.) R7 BY ADV. K.T.THOMAS R7 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).33916/2019(L), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 5 ## **JUDGMENT** Muthoot Finance Ltd., the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.602 of 2020 is a non-banking company with more than 3000 branches all over the country. In the State of Kerala, they are stated to have more than 800 branches. 2. The petitioners contend that they faced a downturn in market conditions and in order to stay afloat, they decided to close 44 branches after informing the statutory authorities and in compliance with law. When their decision was published in the newspapers, the employees were not pleased and they decided to go on strike. The strike was vicious and the petitioner had to close down almost all branches for about 52 days. When physical harm was caused to the willing employees, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(C).No.22610 of 2019. This Court ordered the parties to submit themselves to conciliation proceedings and the Additional Labour Commissioners were ordered to intervene. Sri.Liji J. Vadakkedom, an experienced and able advocate practicing before this Court was appointed as the observer to guide the parties to come to a settlement. By the combined efforts of all concerned, the conciliation was successful and a settlement was arrived at. This Court closed the writ petition WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 6 recording the tripartite settlement holding that it shall have the sanctity of one entered into under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, however with further observations. It was ordered that if there are any further issues between the management and the workers, they shall seek assistance from the Labour Department of the State rather than seeking help from agencies and outfits, which are extraneous to the real concerns. 3. However, the settlement arrived did not last for long. 4. On 10.12.2019, a group of employees staged a dharna in front of the head office and the management as well as the willing employees were threatened. Contending that certain leaders who spoke during the meeting raised open threats of physical harm, the management lodged a complaint before the police. Complaining of inaction by the police, W.P. (C).No.33916 of 2019 was filed seeking the following reliefs: i) to direct the official respondents to provide sufficient police protection to the employees working at the head office and thereafter, so long as the agitation continues, directing the 4th respondent Union to keep a distance of 50 metres from the entry to the office of the head office without obstructing or preventing the free movement of the office staff and others who are coming to the office in connection with the business transaction, without blocking the entry to the office for the employees and customers or obstructing them in any manner as well as for the property of the head office, pending disposal of the writ petition. ii) direct the police to take appropriate action in accordance with the WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 7 provisions of Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation ordinance/Act, 2019 as against all those who are involved in causing damages to the property, pending disposal of the writ petition. 5. This Court by an interim order dated 11.12.2019 directed the 2nd respondent to remove the members and associates of the 4th respondent trade union from the premises of the head office of M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. located at Banerji Road to a distance of at least 15 metres away from the premises so as to ensure the smooth functioning of the office. It was further ordered that the 2nd respondent shall ensure that the removal of the members and associates of the 4th respondent shall not affect the activities or cause hindrance to the ingress and egress of others. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, it was reported before this Court that while the Managing Director of the company was travelling in a car, he was attacked and some injuries were inflicted. This Court by order dated 07.01.2020 took note of the fact situation and directed the police to ensure the safety of the employees. 7. Immediately thereafter, W.P.(C).No.602 of 2020 was filed by Muthoot Finance seeking the following reliefs: i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to provide protection for the employees in the 568 branches so also WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 8 the regional office covered in Ext.P14 list by enabling them to perform their duty without being obstructed or prevented in any manner at the instance of respondents 5 and 6 and their henchmen. ii) issue a writ declaring that the employees of the petitioner company numbering 2500 working at the regional offices and branches covered through Ext.P14 are entitled to get protection for their life, property and peaceful living without being violated at the instance of any one especially respondents 5 and 6 and their henchmen. 8. On 10.01.2020, when the matter had come up, after considering the submissions and noting the facts, this Court issued an interim order ordering protection to the employees working under various branches as referred in Ext.P14. The petitioner was directed to approach the jurisdictional police if any untoward event occurs. This Court taking note of the earlier conciliation proceedings directed the parties to appear before the Labour Commissioner. Sri.Liji J. Vadakkedom, the learned counsel who was appointed as the Advocate observer in previous proceedings, was requested to intervene and hold conciliation meetings at Ernakulam. In terms of the directions issued by this Court, valiant efforts were taken by all concerned to bring about a peaceful settlement. The observer has filed separate and detailed reports on 17.01.2020, 23.01.2020 and on 08.12.2020. It is stated that 17 meetings were convened by the Labour Commissioner/Additional Labour Commissioner and the Observer had WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 9 attended all the meetings. However, the efforts made by the Labour Commissioner as well as the observer to bring about a settlement have ended in failure. 9. According to the petitioner, the striking employees have no manner of right to raise threats or inflict harm to the willing employees or to the Management. They would contend that more than 30 crimes have been registered till date by the police, which fact itself would reveal the seriousness of the situation. Instead of settling the grievances, if any, by exhausting the provisions of the Labour laws, intimidatory tactics are adopted by the striking employees to force the management to concede to their illegal demands. It is contended that now that the conciliation proceedings have failed, the failure report will have to be placed before the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reference to the jurisdictional forum. Until then, the police be directed to maintain vigil and safeguard the life and property of the petitioner, the employees and their customers and necessary steps be taken to ensure that no obstruction is caused to the running of the business. 10. The party respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is asserted that the employees are merely engaging in peaceful Dharna to enforce their rights. According to them, the petitioner has managed to WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 10 influence the police and register false crimes against the employees. It is further contended that the employees resorted to peaceful agitation only when the management violated the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition and unilaterally declared closure of 43 branches and terminated about 166 employees. It is further stated that it is due to the callous attitude of the management that the settlement had ended in failure. 11. The Additional Director General of Police has filed a statement as directed by this Court. It is stated that in the Districts coming under the jurisdiction of I.G. of Police, South Zone, 732 police personnel have been deployed till date for the protection and security of the employees and branches of Muthoot Finance Ltd. Similar numbers of police personnel have been deployed in other places as well. It is further stated that a total number of 30 cases have been registered in various police stations within the jurisdiction of I.G. of Police, South Zone, 13 crimes have been registered in Kottayam District and 13 crimes have been registered in Idukki District. In some of the cases, final reports have been filed. It is further stated that police are following a policy of posting pickets in front of different branches of the bank and have also been patrolling the routes of employees. It is further stated that no crimes have been registered under the Kerala WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 11 Prevention of Damage to Private Property Ordinance, 2019 as those provisions are not attracted. It is further stated that the police are alert and have been maintaining constant vigil to avert any untoward situation. It is also stated that protection is being given to the employees to ensure that no harm is caused to them. 12. I have heard Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions as instructed by Sri.Arun Chandran, the learned counsel, Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned senior counsel appearing for the party respondents as instructed by Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel and Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, the learned Government Pleader. 13. I have considered the submissions advanced. 14. These writ petitions have been pending before this Court for quite some time. In both these writ petitions interim orders have been passed by this Court. From the statement filed by the official respondents, it is borne out that the police are keeping constant vigil. The records would reveal that more than 40 crimes have been registered based on information furnished by the petitioner or their employees complaining of commission of offences. 15. In the course of hearing the learned senior counsel appearing WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 12 for both sides as well as the observer appointed by this Court has submitted that the conciliation has failed for one reason or the other. Both sides concede that it would be futile to keep these writ petitions pending as both sides refuse to relent to the conditions imposed by the other side to settle the dispute once and for all. The learned senior counsel appearing for both sides suggest that the only alternative is to direct the labour authorities to report the failure to the appropriate Government so that the appropriate Government can refer the dispute to the forum having jurisdiction to resolve the issues. I have also gone through the report submitted by the observer appointed by this Court on 8.12.2020. The entire sequence of events have been detailed in the said report and it has been stated that since there are no other alternatives, it has been decided in the conciliation meeting held by the Labour Commissioner/Additional Labour Commissioner to report failure of the conciliation proceedings before this Court. In that view of the matter, the report is accepted. 16. It was by order dated 10.1.2020 that this Court had directed the Labour Commissioner to initiate conciliation proceedings and Sri. Liji J Vadakkedom was appointed as observer. Now that the resolution has failed, it is for the Additional Labour Commissioner (Industrial Relations), who had attended the conciliation meetings to submit a full report under Section WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 13 12(4) of the Act stating the reasons on account of which a settlement could not be arrived at. This shall be done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appropriate Government shall consider the report and take a decision in terms of Section 12(5) of the I.D.Act within a further period of three weeks. 17. Until the dispute is adjudicated by the forum having jurisdiction, the parties will have to maintain law and order. The statement filed by the Additional Director General of Police details the steps taken by the police pursuant to orders issued by this Court to ensure that breach of peace is averted. From the statement it is apparent that more than 40 crimes have been registered till date. The workers have the right to resort to strike or dharna to effectively bargain with the management and to ensure that unfair labour practices are avoided. As held by this court in **Balakrishna Transport v. Superintendent of Police** [1990 (1) KLT 435], strike is only a form of demonstration and the right to strike as well as the right to demonstrate are important weapons in the armoury of workers. However, in the guise of a strike, the union leaders as well as the striking workers cannot resort to strong arm tactics and violence to intimidate and force the management to succumb to their demands. Even if the demand is legitimate, if the management for one reason or the other do not accede to WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 14 their demand, the only option is to resolve the dispute in a manner known to law, steps for which directions have already been issued. In the case on hand, the sequence of events would show that there has been violence. Though the learned senior counsel appearing for the party respondents submitted that the Union leaders or the striking employees cannot be held responsible for stray incidents caused by anti-social elements, the fact remains that the petitioner company will not be able to stand its own against an organizational move by the Union. The records reveal that employees, both men and women, have been assaulted and the functioning of the banks have been obstructed. Some of the allegations are abhorrent in nature. Under no circumstances can the respondents resort to violence to further their cause. That would infringe the rights of the petitioner to carry on their business. 18. In that view of the matter, the interim order passed by this Court on 10.1.2020 in W.P.(C) No.602 of 2020 as modified by order dated 13.2.2020 is made absolute. If any specific complaint is lodged by the petitioners, the police shall render effective protection and they shall also ensure that no harm is caused to the workers, management or staff and that the business being run by the petitioner is not obstructed. If any Dharna or strike is being carried out by the striking employees, it shall be WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 15 outside the premises of the establishment and shall be without obstructing the ingress and egress into the establishment. As undertaken by the Additional Director General of Prosecution in the statement dated 22.2.2020 in W.P.(C) No.602 of 2020, the police shall maintain constant vigil. For the arduous efforts put in by the observer appointed by this Court and taking note of the fact that he had attended 17 conciliation meetings to bring about a settlement, I direct the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to Sri. Liji J Vadakkedom as remuneration, which shall be paid within three weeks. **Sd/-** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **JUDGE** ps WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 16 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33916/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 22610/2019 DATED 14-10-2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 24459/2019 DATED 16-10-2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SIGNED BY THE 174 EMPLOYEES OF THE HEAD OFFICE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10-12-2019.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 10-12-2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE POLICE.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DOWNLOADED VERSION OF THE WHATSAPP MESSAGE.** - **EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.09/2020 REGISTERED BY ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE DATED 02.01.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.11/2020 REGISTERED BY ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE DATED 03.01.2020.** - **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4A A TRUE COPY OF THE TRIPARTITE SETTELMENT ARRIVED AT ON 10TH OCTOBER 2019** **EXHIBIT R4 B A TRUE COPY OF THIS LETTER DATED 26.10.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER** **EXHIBIT R4 C TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER DATED 26.11.2019 EXHIBIT R4 D TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE LABOUR** WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 17 **COMMISSIONER DATED 11.12.2019** **EXHIBIT R4 E A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC 21823/2013 EXHIBIT R4 F TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING NEW BRANCH OF MUTHOOT FINANCE OPENED IN RAJAKKAD IN IDUKKI EXHIBIT R4 G TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN BUSINESS JOURNAL DATED 14.10.2020 EXHIBIT R4 H TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN NEW INDIAN EXPRESS DATED 15.10.2020** WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 18 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 602/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 22610/2019 DATED 14.10.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P(C) 33916/2019 DATED 11.12.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P(C) 33916/2019 DATED 06.01.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SIGNED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE HEAD OFFICE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA, DATED 06.1.2020 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST GIVEN BY SOME OF THE REGIONAL MANAGERS AND THE BRANCH MANAGERS OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STRIKE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT UNION THROUGH E-MAIL EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS RECORDING THE FAILURE OF THE ATTEMPT AT THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER'S LEVEL ALONG WITH NOITCE EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED 10.10.2019 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL PUBLISHED ON MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 06.09.2019 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL PUBLISHED ON KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 05.09.2019 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION PUBLISHED ON NEW INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DATED** WP(C).Nos.33916 of 2019 & 602 of 2020 19 **06.09.2019** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE POLICE BY THE WOMEN EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF BRANCHES OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY, TO WHICH PROTECTION IS REQUIRED** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.05.2020 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER.**