Muthoot Fincorp Limited v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/27TH JYAISHTA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 20591 of 2016 (Y)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-------------** **MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED MUTHOOT CENTRE, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34,** **REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY BAIJU K.B.** **BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SMT.NISHA GEORGE** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER KANNUR-670001.** **3. KERALA STATE PRIVATE CHIT & FINANCE EMPLOYEES UNION CITU CENTRE, SREE KANDESHWARA TEMPLE, NEAR STADIUM GROUND, CALICUT-1.** **4. P.APPUKUTTAN PRESIDENT,** **KERALA STATE PRIVATE CHIT & FINANCE EMPLOYEES UNION, CITU CENTRE, SREE KANDESHWARA TEMPLE, NEAR STADIUM GROUND, CALICUT-1.** ## **5. C.C.RATHEESH** **GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA STATE PRIVATE CHIT & FINANCE EMPLOYEES UNION, CITU CENTRE, SREE KANDESHWARA TEMPLE, NEAR STADIUM GROUND, CALICUT-1.** **6. K.P.SAHADEVAN** **STATE SECRETARY, CITU, C.KANNAN SMARAKA MANDIRAM, KANNUR-670001.** **CONTD..2..** **..2..** **WP(C).No. 20591 of 2016 (Y)** ## **7. SAJI OTTAPLACKAL** **S/O. JOSEPH, OTTAPLACKAL HOUSE, NUCHIYAD P.O., ULICKAL (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT-670705.** ## **8. JIJO THOMAS** **S/O. THOMAS, KONNACKAL HOUSE, NEAR ST. GEORGE CHURCH, CHEMPANTHOTTY P.O., KANNUR-670631.** ## **9. SAJEEV K.ANTONY** **S/O. ANTONY, KANJIRATHUMKEL HOUSE, CHEMPANTHOTTY P.O., NEAR ST. JOSEPH CHURCH, KANNUR-670631.** ## **R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 20591 of 2016 (Y)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** ## **APPENDIX** - **P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09-12-2015 IN WPC NO. 37398/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28-01-2016 IN WPC NO. 3491/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08-03-2016 IN WPC NO. 37398/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08-03-2016 IN WPC NO. 3491/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED 09-02-2016.** - **P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION GIVEN BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 10-02-2016.** - **P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION GIVEN BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 10-02-2016.** - **P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION GIVEN BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT DATED 10-02-2016.** - **P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.G4-1463/2016 DATED 10-03-2016.** - **P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT-P9 DATED 17-03-2016.** - **P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G4-1463/2016 DATED 17-03-2016.** - **P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 05-04-2016 IN WPC NO. 13268/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **P13 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.G4-1463/2016 DATED 25-05-2016.** - **P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT-P13 DATED 02-06-2016.** - **P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02-06-2016.** - **P16 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27-02-2016 GIVEN TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.** - **P17 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27-02-2016 GIVEN TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT.** - **P18 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27-02-2016 GIVEN TO THE 9TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------// TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE** **SB** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** ## **===================== W.P.(C) No.20591 of 2016 - Y** **====================== Dated this the 17[th] day of June, 2016** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) apprehends that the respondents 3 to 9; would cause obstruction to the normal working of the branches of the petitioner in Kannur, Kasargod and Kozhikode districts. The root cause for such apprehension is Exhibit P15 notice issued by the 3[rd] respondent Union threatening a strike from 20.06.2016. Exhibit P15 is issued in pursuance of a dispute between the management and its employees; which according to the petitioner-management has already been settled by Exhibit P5. 2. The dispute related to 9 employees, 6 of whom were under suspension and 3 according to the management had abandoned employment. On the union raising a dispute after **2** W.P.(C) No.20591 of 2016 - Y conciliation there is a settlement arrived at before the Conciliation Officer evident at Exhibit P5. By Exhibit P5 the six suspended workers were agreed to be taken back by the management. As to the 3 employees who are alleged to have abandoned employment; the management was directed to consider their representations sympathetically. The dispute now raised is said to be on account of the stand taken by the Management in refusing to re-employ these three; the respondents 7 to 9. 3. The petitioner asserts that the three; abandoned their employment on their own volition. The representations submitted by the three employees, seen at Exhibits P7 to P9, itself indicate that they had voluntarily abandoned employment, due to the transfer made by the Management. The District Labour Officer, the 2[nd] respondent, then initiated proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, directing the management to take back, in employment, those 3 persons also **3** W.P.(C) No.20591 of 2016 - Y by Exhibit P11. Exhibit P11 is said to have been challenged before this court in W. P. © No.13268 of 2016, in which there is an interim stay granted by this Court as evident from Exhibit P12. 4. Subsequently despite the interim order, the 2[nd] respondent is said to have initiated Exhibit P13 proceedings. In the present writ petition the petitioner does not challenge Exhibit P13, but the grievance raised is on the apprehension harboured on the threat leveled by Exhibit P15; of a strike being commenced. The relief sought for are to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the normal working of the branches of the petitioner in the aforesaid districts are not disrupted as a consequence of Exhibit P15 notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in **U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd.** v. **Chandra Bhan Dubey and Others [(1999) 1 SCC 741]** to urge that this court could invoke the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when any citizen or **4** W.P.(C) No.20591 of 2016 - Y person is wronged and that wrong is done by the State, an instrumentality of the State, a Company or a Co-operative Society or Association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, or even any individual. There can be no dispute to the aforesaid proposition. However this Court is of the opinion that the decision cited is slightly out of context insofar as the present controversy is concerned. 5. In the cited decision, the appellant Society, raised the question of maintainability of a writ petition against it, on the ground that it is not a State or an instrumentality of the State. The Honourable Supreme Court having considered the constitution of the society and the manner in which the service of its employees were regulated by the State, found that the Society is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. In the present case the apprehension of obstruction of smooth functioning of the branches of the petitioner, is on the basis of a call for strike made by the Union, the notice of which has been **5** W.P.(C) No.20591 of 2016 - Y issued to the employer also. As of now there is nothing to indicate that the apprehension of obstruction or disruption of the functioning of the branches of the petitioner, is imminent. Then again it is trite that this Court would not invoke its extraordinary powers on a mere apprehension expressed. It cannot also be ignored that the call for strike; is a permissible exercise of collective bargaining and the interdiction would only be in causing disruption of work of other willing employees and the strike being carried on in a manner causing loss or damage to the property of the management or the life and limb of the public or the other employees or the management personnel. In that event; the petitioner would have to approach the appropriate authorities under the State before approaching this Court with a petition under Article 226, and that too on the failure to act in averting a wrong. 6. It is not as if the petitioner is not aware of such procedure and the remedies available to them. Earlier also on the **6** W.P.(C) No.20591 of 2016 - Y very same dispute, when there was an obstruction caused, the petitioners had approached this Court with two different writ petitions, in which interim orders were granted for police protection as per Exhibits P1 and P2. Subsequently on settlement of disputes, the writ petitions were disposed of by Exhibits P3 and P4. Even at that time the petitioner had apprehended that the Union would resume the agitation against the management. The said apprehension was also expressed before the Division Bench and the learned judges who disposed of the two writ petitions were careful to indicate that; having regard to the factual situation the writ petitions are disposed of in the light of the interim orders passed in the above cases. Hence even now the petitioner could approach the appropriate authorities for protection from any illegal activities; if carried on by the striking employees. It would be in-appropriate for this Court to now invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226; especially since the same has already been invoked by the Division Bench and a **7** W.P.(C) No.20591 of 2016 - Y police protection order granted. This Court would also not preempt a perfectly legal and permissible exercise of settlement of industrial disputes; on mere apprehensions expressed by one of the parties. This Court would hasten to add that the observations made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits; as to the validity of the dispute raised or otherwise. 7. In this context apposite also would be a reference to **Rohtas Industries Ltd. And Another** v. **Rohtas Industries Staff Union and Others [(1976) 2 SCC 82]** , which reads inter- alia; as under: “The amendment to Article 226 in 1963 inserting Article 226 (1-A) reiterates the targets of the writ power as inclusive of any person by the expressive reference to 'the residence of such person'. But it is one thing to affirm the jurisdiction, another to authorise its free exercise like a bull in a china shop. This court has spelt out wise and clear restraints on the use of this extraordinary remedy and High Courts will not go beyond those wholesome inhibitions except were the monstrosity of the situation or other exceptional circumstances cry for timely judicial interdict or mandate.” **8** W.P.(C) No.20591 of 2016 - Y This court does not think that there is any such exceptional circumstance available herein to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction available to this Court and the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere, which the petitioner has not thought fit to invoke. The writ petition, hence is found to be not maintainable and would stand dismissed in limine. **Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** SB/17/06/2016 // true copy // P.A to Judge.