MANOJ G. NATH v. Sub Inspector of Police Nilambur Police Station; Secretary, Milma Contract Labour Union, AITUC, Nilambur; Subin; Dairy Manager, Malabar Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Wayanad Dairy; Manager, Milma Marketing Depot, Nilambur

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 7TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **W.P.(C) No.280 OF 2020(H)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **MANOJ G. NATH, S/O GOPINATHAN, USHAS, MANNUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, GANGA NAGAR, NEAR CENTRAL SCHOOL, CHERUPULASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 329.** - **2 SECRETARY, MILMA CONTRACT LABOURS UNION, AITUC, NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 329.** - **3 SUBIN, C/O MILMA MARKETING DEPOT, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 329.** - **4 DAIRY MANAGER, MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK, PRODUCERS UNION LTD., WAYANAD DAIRY, WAYANAD-673 121.** - **5 MANAGER, MILMA MARKETING DEPOT, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT679 329.** - **R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HAZAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.J.JAMES R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.M.FATHIMA JALEENA** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI P.P.THAJUDHEEN - SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.280 of 2020(H) 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has entered into Ext.P1 agreement with the 4[th] respondent Dairy Manager, Malabar Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited, for handling Milma products in Nilambur Depot under the 5[th] respondent Manager. Ext.P1 agreement is valid for the period from 01.12.2019 till 30.12.2021. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Nilambur Police Station to provide sufficient protection to the petitioner and his workers for handling milk products in Nilambur Depot from respondents 2 and 3 and their men and to keep law and order in the locality. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to conduct an enquiry on his complaint dated 02.01.2020, which the 1[st] respondent had acknowledged vide Ext.P6 receipt. 2. On 07.01.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for the 1[st] respondent. This Court issued urgent notice to respondents 2 and 3 by speed post. The learned Standing Counsel took notice for respondents 4 and 5. This Court passed an interim order on 07.01.2020, which reads thus: W.P.(C) No.280 of 2020(H) 3 “.......... In the light of fact that the petitioner is having a subsisting contract with 5[th] respondent Manager, Milma Marketing depot, necessary Police protection shall be given to the petitioner and his workers for handling milk products in the depot as against any action or obstruction being caused by 2[nd] respondent and his members.” On 19.3.2020, the said interim order was revived and extended till 02.04.2020. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2[nd] respondent labour union opposing the reliefs sought for. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1[st] respondent, the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4 and 5. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 3[rd] 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 W.P.(C) No.280 of 2020(H) 4 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 welldisciplined 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 W.P.(C) No.280 of 2020(H) 5 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, 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 W.P.(C) No.280 of 2020(H) 6 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 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 W.P.(C) No.280 of 2020(H) 7 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. In the instant case, the petitioner is engaging workers for handling milk products in Nilambur Depot on the strength of Ext.P1 agreement dated 31.11.2019 executed with the 5th respondent, which is valid till 30.12.2021. From the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent, it is seen that the members of the Union is having certain disputes with the petitioner. 11. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on the instructions from the 1st respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Nilambur Police Station would submit that on the strength of the interim order dated 07.01.2020, the 1st respondent has rendered necessary Police W.P.(C) No.280 of 2020(H) 8 assistance to the petitioner and his workers for handling milk products in Nilambur Depot and also to ensure maintenance of law and order in the locality. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to move the 1[st] respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Nilambur Police Station seeking Police protection, to the petitioner and his workers for handling milk products in the Nilambur Depot in case of any obstruction being caused by respondents 2 and 3 and their men. In case any such request being made by the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the law laid down in this judgment. No order as to costs. Sd/- **ANIL K NARENDRAN JUDGE** MIN W.P.(C) No.280 of 2020(H) 9 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 30.11.2019** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LIST DATED 30.11.2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.12.2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 02.01.2020** **TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 02.01.2020**