Malabar Tiles, Door No. X/465-B and X/465-H, Cheruvathur, Kasaragod District v. District Police Chief, Kasaragod District; Circle Inspector of Police, Chandera Police Station; Station House Officer, Chandera Police Station; Swathanthra Thozhilali Union

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.23334 OF 2020(N)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **MALABAR TILES, DOOR NO.X/465-B AND X/465-H, CHERUVATHUR, KASARGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, MOHAMMED SABEER K.C.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KASARGOD DISTRICT, KASARGOD-671313.** - **2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD-671310.** - **3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD-671310.** - **4 SWATHANTHRA THOZHILALI UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PADANE POOL, MOOSA HAJI MUKKU, PADANE, CHERUVATHUR, KASARAGOD -671312.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -2- W.P.(C). No. 23334 of 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in the business of wholesale and retail of granite, marble tiles and other building materials, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate protection to the petitioner, its staff and attached registered workers and also for the loading and unloading of goods in its godown situated at Vannathanmukku, Padane, Cheruvathur, Kasaragod. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate protection to the life of its employees. 2. In the writ petition, documents marked as Exts.P4 to P7 are the identity cards issued to the registered workers of the petitioner firm under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. In the writ petition it is alleged that despite the fact that the petitioner is undertaking loading and unloading works by engaging its own registered workers in its godown, which is situated in a scheme covered area, the -3- W.P.(C). No. 23334 of 2020 members of the 4[th] respondent headload workers are causing obstruction. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation before the 1[st] respondent District Police Chief, and thereafter moved this writ petition before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 3. On 02.11.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, notice before admission was ordered to the respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to the 4[th] respondent. This Court passed an interim order dated 02.11.2020, which reads thus: “It is pointed out by the learned counsel that pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment of this Court, cards under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules have been issued to the workers of the petitioner herein as is evident by Exts.P4 to P7. In spite of the above, the party respondent has been obstructing the petitioner as well as the attached workers from loading and unloading the goods inside the godown, contends the learned counsel. Having regard to the submissions advanced, there will be an interim order as prayed for, for a period of three months.” -4- W.P.(C). No. 23334 of 2020 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 4[th] respondent. 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 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 -5- W.P.(C). No. 23334 of 2020 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, 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." 7. In **Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary** **[(2014) 2 SCC 532]** the Apex Court held that, one of the -6- W.P.(C). No. 23334 of 2020 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 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, -7- ## W.P.(C). No. 23334 of 2020 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) KLT 732]** , in the context of the Section 21 of of -8- W.P.(C). No. 23334 of 2020 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 -9- ## W.P.(C). No. 23334 of 2020 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. 10. In the instant case, the petitioner's godown at Vannathanmukku is situated in a scheme covered area. The petitioner is having its own registered headload workers, who have been issued with Exts.P4 to P7 identity cards under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. The specific stand taken in the writ petition is that the loading and unloading activity in the godown of the petitioner's godown is undertaken only by engaging the registered workers and no unregistered workers are being engaged. 11. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that in terms of the interim order of this Court dated 02.11.2020, the 3[rd] respondent Station House Officer has rendered necessary police protection to the petitioner firm for undertaking the loading and unloading activities in its godown by engaging its own registered workers. -10- W.P.(C). No. 23334 of 2020 12. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: - (i) The 3[rd] respondent shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, in connection with the loading and unloading works in the petitioner's godown by engaging its own workers holding Exts.P4 to P7 identity cards at the instance of the members of the 4[th] respondent union. - (ii) In case there is any threat to the life of the staff and workers employed by the petitioner or any obstruction caused to the loading and unloading activities in the godown of the petitioner by its registered workers, at the instance of the members of the 4[th] respondent union, the petitioner shall move the 3[rd] respondent Station House Officer with a proper request for Police protection. - (iii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioner, the 3[rd] respondent -11- W.P.(C). No. 23334 of 2020 shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to herein before and also the law laid down in the decision referred to supra. No order as to costs. **Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** das -12- W.P.(C). No. 23334 of 2020 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE TRADE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE CHERUVATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 01.02.2020** - **EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAX AUTHORITY TO THE FIRM.** **EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.06.2020 IN W.P.(C). No.11858 OF 2020.** - **EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KANHANGAD TO IBRAHIM ANSARI DATED 19.08.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KANHANGAD TO HAJRAT ANSARI DATED 19.08.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KANHANGAD TO KARIM ANSARI DATED 19.08.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KANHANGAD TO VINOD KUMAR P. DATED 19.08.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2020.**