Malamuzha Cements and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others

W.P.(C) No.6210 OF 2021(A) 1 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **W.P.(C) No.6210 OF 2021(A)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **MALAMPUZHA CEMENTS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NIDA, MENONPARA ROAD, KANJIKODE, PALAKAKD-678 621.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.N.HARIDAS SRI.K.T.BOSCO SHRI.SAIFUDEEN T.S SMT.SMITHA GOPINATH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, PUDUPPALLI THERUVU, NURANI, PALAKKAD-678 001.** - **3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WALAYAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-678 624.** - **4 PALAKKAD DISTRICT ENGINEERING AND MAZDOOR SANGAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BMS OFFICE, HARIKKARA STREET, PALAKKAD-678 001.** - **5 MALAMPUZHA CEMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MENON PARA ROAD, KANJIKKODE, PALAKKAD-678 621.** - **6 SASI.A., KUNNAMPARA HOUSE, P.O. ELAPULLY, PALAKKAD-678 533.** - **7 AYYADURAI.S., POOLAMPARA CHANDRAPURAM, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD-678 624.** W.P.(C) No.6210 OF 2021(A) 2 **8 NARAYANAN.K.V/1436 MEENAKSHI NIVAS, KIZHAKKEMURI, KANJIKKODE, PALAKKAD-678 621.** **9 KRISHNANKUTTY C.A., CHUNDAPARAMPU HOUSE, CHERUKULAM KOTTAI, PALAKKAD-678 572.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.6210 OF 2021(A) 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate protection for the life of the employees of the petitioner company and also the property of the petitioner, from respondents 6 to 9 and their men. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to ensure adequate protection for ingress and egress to the petitioner company; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to ensure that respondents 6 to 9 do not conduct any destructive or illegal activities within 500 metres of the company premises. In the writ petition, it is alleged that respondents 6 to 9 are causing obstruction to the smooth functioning of the petitioner’s establishment. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 complaint dated 01.03.2021 before the 3[rd] respondent Sub Inspector of Police and Ext.P5 complaint dated 05.03.2021 before the 2[nd] respondent District Police Chief and thereafter moved this writ petition before this Court, seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 2. On 10.03.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on W.P.(C) No.6210 OF 2021(A) 4 admission for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 4 to 9. 3. On 12.03.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; “Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 4 to 9. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the 3[rd] respondent, would submit that there are labour disputes with the management and the workers regarding payment of wages. At present, there is no law and order issues. The learned Government Pleader seeks time to file a statement of the 3[rd] respondent. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader, the 3[rd] respondent is directed to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality in connection with any agitation/protest made by respondents 6 to 9 or their supporters.” 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 respondents 4 to 9. 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 W.P.(C) No.6210 OF 2021(A) 5 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 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 W.P.(C) No.6210 OF 2021(A) 6 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 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 W.P.(C) No.6210 OF 2021(A) 7 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) 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 W.P.(C) No.6210 OF 2021(A) 8 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 circumstances also which would justify grant of such direction in the facts of a particular case. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even after the interim order of this Court dated 12.03.2021, respondents 6 to 9 are creating issues. W.P.(C) No.6210 OF 2021(A) 9 11. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that after the interim order of this Court dated 12.03.2021, there is no law and order issues. 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 3[rd] respondent Sub Inspector of Police shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of respondents 6 to 9 or their supporters. - (ii) In case there is any threat to the life of the employees or workers engaged by the petitioner, from the side of respondents 6 to 9 or their supporters, the petitioner shall move the 3[rd] respondent Sub Inspector of Police with a request for Police protection. - (iii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioner, the 3[rd] respondent Sub Inspector of Police 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. - (iv) The petitioner shall corporate with any conciliation proceedings pending before the concerned Labour Officer. - (v) It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of respondents 6 to 9 or their supporters staging any protest or dharna, in a democratic manner, without causing any obstruction whatsoever W.P.(C) No.6210 OF 2021(A) 10 to the functioning of the petitioner’s establishment. No order as to costs. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** MIN W.P.(C) No.6210 OF 2021(A) 11 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.01.2021 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 02.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 01.03.2021 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 01.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05.03.2021 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P6** **TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 05.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**