M/S SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES INDIA PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.4939 OF 2021(N)** ## **PETITIONER:** **M/S.SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES INDIA PVT. LTD., XXII/260A, ANGAMALY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,KERALA STATE, INDIA,PIN-683 573, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER R.RAMESH BABU, S/O. LATE C.RANGANATHAN, AGED 49 YEARS, PLOT NO.35B, 3RD STREET, ADITHANAR NAGAR, IYYAPPANTHANGAL, CHENNAI, PIN-600056** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.VIVEK SRI.SHYAMDEEP S.SHENOY SRI.ARUN ASHOK SMT.NEENA JAMES A.R.AMJATH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., PIN-695 001** - **2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683 101** - **3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683 572** -2- WP(C).No.4939 OF 2021(N) **4 SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES EMPLOYEES UNION, A.P.KURIAN SMARAKA MANDHIRAM, MANJAPRA ROAD, ANGAMALY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT P.V.TOMY** **R1 TO R3 BY SRI.SUNILNATH N B, GOVT.PLEADER R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.JUSTINE JACOB** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- WP(C).No.4939 OF 2021(N) ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, which is a multinational company having a paint manufacturing unit at the Industrial Development Area, Angamaly, 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 and sufficient police protection to the life, liberty and property of the petitioner and its employees against the illegal strike being conducted by the members of the 4[th] respondent Union. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to consider the complaint submitted by the petitioner company as evidenced by Ext.P3 dated 20.02.2021 and to act upon the same within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the members of the 4[th] respondent Union not to interfere or cause any obstruction whatsoever to the smooth functioning of the business activities of the petitioner company and to avail the lawful means to raise its grievances, if any. 2. In the writ petition, it is stated that, on -4- WP(C).No.4939 OF 2021(N) 06.02.2021, the 4[th] respondent employees union served Ext.P1 strike notice demanding revision of service conditions. Some of the employees of the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 request dated 20.02.2021 before the HR Department, seeking protection from the striking employees. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 complaint before the 3[rd] respondent Station House Officer, seeking police protection from the striking employees, which was acknowledged vide Ext.P4 receipt. The District Labour Officer (General), Ernakulam convened a conciliation conference on 22.02.2021, in which the striking employees walked out, as evidenced by Ext.P5. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking police protection. 3. On 25.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 4[th] respondent returnable by this date. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the -5- WP(C).No.4939 OF 2021(N) learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel 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 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 -6- WP(C).No.4939 OF 2021(N) (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 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 -7- WP(C).No.4939 OF 2021(N) 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 has the sanction of the rule of law. Unions and strikers are no -8- ## WP(C).No.4939 OF 2021(N) 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. The learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent would point out certain labour issues, which are now pending conciliation before the District Labour Officer (General), Ernakulam, as evidenced by Ext.P5 proceedings. The employees of the 4[th] respondent Union are staging peaceful protest, in a democratic manner, and they have absolutely no intention to take law into their own hands. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the demand made by the employees, who are members -9- ## WP(C).No.4939 OF 2021(N) of the 4[th] respondent Union, is absolutely without any legal basis and that, the management will certainly co-operate with the conciliation proceedings pending before the District Labour Officer, raising appropriate legal and factual contentions. 11. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the 3[rd] respondent, would submit that in case there is any law and order issues in connection with the protest made by the employees, who are the members of the 4[th] respondent Union, the police shall render necessary assistance. Having considered 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 shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality at the instance of the employees, who are the members of the 4[th] respondent Union. - (ii) In case there is any threat to the life, liberty and property of the petitioner company or its workers from the side of the employees, who are the members of the 4[th] respondent Union, the petitioner shall move the 3[rd] respondent Station House Officer with a request for Police protection. - (iii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioner, the 3[rd] respondent shall -10- WP(C).No.4939 OF 2021(N) 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) Both parties shall co-operate with the conciliation proceedings, which is now pending before the District Labour Officer (General), Ernakulam as evidenced by Ext.P5. No order as to costs. Sd/- ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/4/3 -11- WP(C).No.4939 OF 2021(N) ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID STRIKE NOTICE CAUSED BY 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 06.02.2021** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF PETITIONER COMPANY BEFORE THE H.R DEPARTMENT DATED 20.02.2021** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.02.2021** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT GIVEN BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.02.2021** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER ON 22.02.2021 DATED 22.02.2021**