Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThis writ petition is disposed of.

M/s. Samudra v. Sub Inspector of Police, Sreekandapuram, Kannur District; Circle Inspector of Police, Sreekandapuram, Kannur District; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thalipparamba; District Police Chief, Kannur; Director General of Police (Law and Order), Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala represented by the Secretary(Home Affairs), Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram; District Labour Officer, Kannur; Shops and Establishments Employees Union (CITU) represented by its Area Secretary, Sreekandapuram, Kannur District; and 9 to 24 named workers versus M/s. Samudra (Hotel Samudra) and others based on WP(C).No.29182 of 2020

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.29182 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date
2021-03-04
Court Decision / Holding
The court disposed of the writ petition with directions to expedite conciliation before the District Labour Officer Kannur within two months and to ensure that the respondents do not obstruct ingress/egress to the hotel or resort to violence or intimidation. If violated, the petitioner may lodge a complaint with the 2nd respondent for action. The order underscores that while the right to strike and demonstrate is protected, it cannot be used to disrupt lawful business operations.
Final Disposition
This writ petition is disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M/s. Samudra (Hotel Samudra)

Respondents

  • Sub Inspector of Police, Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • Circle Inspector of Police, Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thalipparamba, Kannur
  • District Police Chief, Kannur
  • Director General of Police (Law and Order), Police Head Quarters, Thiruvananthapuram
  • State of Kerala represented by the Secretary(Home Affairs), Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
  • District Labour Officer, Kannur
  • Shops and Establishments Employees Union (CITU) represented by its Area Secretary, Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • Vinod P S/o Raveendran, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • Joseph Thomas @ Biju S/o Thomas, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • BINOY PHILIP S/O PHILIP, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • KURIAN S/O SIMON, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • SANTHOSH N.S S/O SUKUMARAN, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • PRINCE MATHEW S/O MATHEW, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • PRASANTHAN T.K, S/O GOVINDAN T.K, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • MANOJ P.V S/O.K.V RAGHAVAN, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • SHOBIN S/O.GEORGE, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • ANURAG A.K S/O. BALAN C.P, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • RAJU P.R S/O.RAJAPPAN, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • NARAYANAN K.V S/O. CHATHU NAIR, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • ANOOPKUMAR K S/O. M.NANU, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • RAJEEV E S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • SURESH K. V S/O. RAGHAVAN, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District
  • AKHIL M.P S/O. PRABHAKARAN M.K, Worker, Hotel Samudra, Shops and Establishments Employees Union(CITU), Sreekandapuram, Kannur District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M.G. Karthikeyan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P.P. Thajudeen (Government Pleader)
  • • Nandagopal S. Kurup (Advocate)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Hotel Samudra, a three-star establishment, seeks protection from obstruction and disruption during a labour dispute with its workers in Kannur. The petitioner asserts that the COVID-19 lockdown devastated its business, forcing temporary closures and retrenchment of some staff, though compensation was paid. With reopening, a faction of workers began agitation and at times obstructed access to the hotel; Ext.P1 records the petitioner's grievance with the police, prompting the court to intervene. The management contends that the workers, though part of the establishment's workforce, are exercising a right to strike and to demonstrate, but insists that such activity must not unduly impede the hotel’s operations or harm customers and willing workers. The petition acknowledges a pending labour dispute before the District Labour Officer and notes that conciliation talks have begun. The High Court recognises the workers’ right to strike and to demonstrate as a legitimate tool in bargaining but holds that violence or intimidation are unacceptable. It directs the 7th respondent to expedite conciliation proceedings and attempt to resolve the entire dispute within two months, while ordering the parties to refrain from obstructing ingress/egress and from violence. The order balances the pandemic-induced business pressures with workers’ rights, grounding relief in the law’s framework for industrial disputes and conciliation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Right to strike and right to demonstrate are important weapons in the workers' armoury
  • Strike cannot be used to obstruct ingress/egress or intimidate; disputes to be resolved in manner known to law
  • Conciliation and due process must precede any coercive action; disputes pending before District Labour Officer should be expedited

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the COVID-19 lockdown devastated the business, forcing prolonged closure and retrenchment of staff. Although compensation was paid, agitation by workers obstructed hotel operations. The petitioner seeks directions for effective police protection for management, willing workers, and staff, and an order to ensure that ingress and egress to the hotel is not obstructed by striking workers. It emphasizes that a labour dispute is pending before the District Labour Officer and that conciliation proceedings must be expedited to resolve the dispute in a lawful manner, without denying the establishment the right to operate. The petitioner relies on prior authority that labour disputes require resolution through lawful channels and that strike rights must be exercised in a manner that does not disrupt operations.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that workers resorted to peaceful protests near the establishment to bargain for their demands and that violence or intimidation is not part of the protest. They argue that conciliation proceedings are pending before the District Labour Officer and that any actions should be resolved through lawful dispute resolution, not through coercive interference with management. The workers seek rotation of employment and continued payment of wages; they assert their right to strike and demonstrate as legitimate tools, but maintain that the management should comply with legal processes. The respondents assert that the writ petition is an attempt to defeat the workers’ lawful grievances and urge the court to allow the labour dispute process to continue with expedition while protecting rights to peaceful protest.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Balakrishna Transport v. Superintendent of Police1990 (1) KLT 435PositiveCited to support the proposition that strike is a form of demonstration and a legitimate weapon in workers’ arsenal.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M/s. Samudra v. Sub Inspector of Police, Sreekandapuram, Kannur District; Circle Inspector of Police, Sreekandapuram, Kannur District; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thalipparamba; District Police Chief, Kannur; Director General of Police (Law and Order), Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala represented by the Secretary(Home Affairs), Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram; District Labour Officer, Kannur; Shops and Establishments Employees Union (CITU) represented by its Area Secretary, Sreekandapuram, Kannur District; and 9 to 24 named workers versus M/s. Samudra (Hotel Samudra) and others based on WP(C).No.29182 of 2020 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.29182 OF 2020(W)** ## **PETITIONER:** **M/S. HOTEL SAMUDRA,** **SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, JOHN KALLAT, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. LATE VARGHESE** **BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571** - **2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670141.** - **4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KANNUR - 670001.** - **5 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW AND ORDER) POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.** - **6 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY(HOME AFFAIRS), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.** - **7 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KANNUR - 670001.** - **8 SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU) REPRESENTED BY ITS AREA SECRETARY, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **9 VINOD P S/O. RAVEENDRAN, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** **WP(C).No.29182 OF 2020** **2** - **10 JOSEPH THOMAS @ BIJU S/O. THOMAS, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **11 BINOY PHILIP S/O. PHILIP, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **12 KURIAN** - **S/O. SIMON, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **13 SANTHOSH N.S S/O. SUKUMARAN, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **14 PRINCE MATHEW** - **S/O. MATHEW, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **15 PRASANTHAN T.K, S/O. GOVINDAN T.K, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **16 MANOJ P.V S/O.K.V RAGHAVAN, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **17 SHOBIN S/O.GEORGE, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **18 ANURAG A.K** - **S/O. BALAN C.P, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **19 RAJU P.R** - **S/O.RAJAPPAN, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** **WP(C).No.29182 OF 2020** **3** - **20 NARAYANAN K.V** - **S/O. CHATHU NAIR, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** ## **21 ANOOPKUMAR K** - **S/O. M.NANU, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **22 RAJEEV E** - **S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **23 SURESH K. V** - **S/O. RAGHAVAN,WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **24 AKHIL M.P** - **S/O. PRABHAKARAN M.K, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.** - **R9-24 BY ADV. SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP** ## **SRI PP THAJUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.29182 OF 2020** **4** ## **JUDGMENT** M/s. Samudra, the petitioner herein, is a firm running a hotel with three star classification. They were operating with a FL-3 license issued under the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. The petitioner contends that the lock down imposed by the Government to restrict the spread of the deadly pandemic destroyed their business as they were not able to open the bar. They had to close down the hotel for quite some time due to the lockdown and even thereafter, the footfall was minimal. In order to stay afloat, they had to terminate the service of some of their employees. According to the petitioner, compensation due to them as mandated under law was paid. However, the employees started an agitation and obstructed the functioning of the hotel. In the said circumstances, they submitted Ext.P1 representation before the police. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action was taken. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions to the respondents 1 to 4 to afford effective protection to the management, willing workers and staff of the hotel and also for a further direction to ensure that the ingress and egress into the hotel is not obstructed by the striking workers. 2. The respondents 9 to 24 have filed a counter affidavit wherein **WP(C).No.29182 OF 2020** **5** it is stated that the party respondents have never resorted to any illegal means of protest or to cause any disruption to the smooth running of the business. It is contended that after the lockdown when the hotel was opened in May, 2020 for selling IMFL adopting the virtual queue system only a few workers were granted employment. The rest of the workers were denied their salary. The said illegality is being perpetrated even now. The workers demanded that all the workers in the rolls of the petitioner establishment be granted employment on rotation basis. However, the management did not accede to the said request. In the said circumstances, the workers lodged Ext.R9(A) complaint before the District Labour Officer, Kannur. Conciliation talks were initiated but the management took an indifferent stand and refused to appear to sort out the dispute. This fact is evident from Ext.R9(B) minutes as well. It is stated that the full functioning of the hotel commenced on 22.12.2020 but the workers were not allowed to join duty. When they were illegally denied employment, all that they have done is resort to peaceful protest near the entrance of the establishment. The ingress and egress to the hotel was not obstructed. It is stated that the workers have lodged Ext.R9(C) before the 7th respondent and during its pendency, retrenchment notices were issued. According to the respondents, the instant writ petition is filed to defeat the legitimate grievances raised by the workers. **WP(C).No.29182 OF 2020** **6** 3. I have heard Sri. M.G.Karthikeyan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Nandagopal S. Kurup, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that a huge posse of police officers is posted outside the hotel pursuant to the interim order issued by this Court on 29.12.2020. It is contended that law and order is being maintained and the directions issued by this Court is being complied with. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced. It is apparent from the submissions advanced by both sides that a labour dispute is pending between the management and the workers. When the management asserts that the business has spiraled down due to the pandemic and that they are not in a position to carry on with a bloated workforce, the workers contend that they are being deprived of even their salary and are being denied employment. I find that the dispute is now pending before the District Labour Officer, Kannur. 6. The party respondents, who admittedly are in the rolls of the petitioner, 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.** **WP(C).No.29182 OF 2020** **7** **Superintendent of Police[1]** , 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 party respondents cannot resort to violence with a view 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 their demand, the only option is to resolve the dispute in a manner known to law. 7. Now that the matter is pending before the District Labour Officer, Kannur and conciliation proceedings are pending, necessary directions can be issued to expedite the conciliation proceedings and take the matter to its logical conclusion within a time frame. While conciliation proceedings are pending, the party respondents will not be justified in obstructing the entry into the hotel or in threatening or intimidating the management, the willing workers or customers. 8. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 7th respondent before whom Ext.R9(A) and R9(C) are pending to expedite the conciliation proceedings and make an earnest attempt to settle the entire disputes expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The party respondents shall not > 1 [1990 (1) KLT 435] **WP(C).No.29182 OF 2020** **8** obstruct the ingress or egress into the hotel and shall not commit any acts of violence or intimidation of either the willing workers, management or customers. If the above direction is violated, it is for the petitioner to lodge a complaint before the 2nd respondent, who shall enquire into the same and if the grievance is found genuine, appropriate action shall be taken against the concerned persons. This writ petition is disposed of. ## **Sd/-** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** NS **WP(C).No.29182 OF 2020** **9** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2020.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.27473/2020.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R9(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE CANNANORE SHOP & ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOYEE'S UNION TO THE DLO, KANNUR** **EXHIBIT R9(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING CONVENED BY THE DLO, KANNUR ON 21.10.2020** **EXHIBIT R9(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.12.2020 PREFERRED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 9 TO 24 BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT R9(D) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 9TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R9(E) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 06.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER**