Ramya R. v. District Police Chief, Circle Inspector of Police, Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, CITU (Headload Workers Union) Polpully Unit

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.1867 OF 2021(G)** ## **PETITIONER:** **RAMYA R. AGED 30 YEARS PROPRIETRESS, PR CEMENT BRICKS, PANAYUR, ATHIKODE POST, POLPULLY PANCHAYAT, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN - 678 554.** **BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF**| |---|---| ||**PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 001.**| |**2**|**THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE**| ||**CHITTUR POLICE STATION - 678 101.**| |**3**|**THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE**| ||**BOARD**| ||**FIRST FLOOR, MA COMPLEX, OPPOSITE TO KSEB, TB**| ||**ROAD, PALAKKAD - 14.**| |**4**|**CITU (HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION)**| ||**POLPULLY UNIT (KALLUKUTTIYAL), POLPULLY POST,**| ||**PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 552, REP. BY THE**| ||**SECRETARY, PRAVEEN, S/O.DAMODARAN,**| ||**NELLUKUTHUPARA, PANAYUR, ATHIKODE POST,**| ||**POLPULLY PANCHAYAT, PALAKKAD TALUK AND**| ||**DISTRICT, PIN - 678 554.**| ||**R3 BY ADV. SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM**| ||**R4 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY**| -2- WP(C).No.1867 OF 2021(G) **R1 & 2 BY SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- WP(C).No.1867 OF 2021(G) ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is the proprietress of PR Cement Bricks located at Athikode, which is functioning on the strength of Ext.P1 consent to operate dated 01.12.2020 issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and Ext.P2 license issued by the Polpully Grama Panchayat, which is valid till 31.10.2025, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to provide necessary protection for running the said unit, against the 4[th] respondent Union and its headload workers. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to provide necessary protection for running the said unit against the claim made by anyone for loading and unloading. In the writ petition, it is alleged that the headload workers, who are the members of the 4[th] respondent Union, are causing obstruction to the loading and unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment, though the establishment is not situated in a scheme covered area, under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, -4- WP(C).No.1867 OF 2021(G) 1983. The document placed on record as Ext.P3 is an e-chalan in receipt of an application made by the petitioner for registration of headload workers, submitted before the Assistant Labour Officer, Palakkad II Circle. Alleging obstruction from the side of the headload workers, who are members of the 4[th] respondent Union, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint dated 15.01.2021 before the 1[st] respondent District Police Chief and Ext.P6 complaint dated 15.01.2021 before the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer of Chittur Police Station and thereafter, moved this writ petition before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 2. On 25.01.2021 when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. The learned Standing Counsel took notice on admission for the 3[rd] respondent. Urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to the 4[th] respondent, returnable within two weeks. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent, on instructions, submitted that the area in question is not a scheme covered area. Having considered the submissions made by the learned -5- WP(C).No.1867 OF 2021(G) counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent, this Court granted an interim order as prayed for, a period of one month. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent and also the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent Union. 4. 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 **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** WP(C).No.1867 OF 2021(G) 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. 5. 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." 6. In **Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary** WP(C).No.1867 OF 2021(G) -7- **[(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]** . 7. 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, -8- ## WP(C).No.1867 OF 2021(G) 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. 8. 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 -9- WP(C).No.1867 OF 2021(G) 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 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 WP(C).No.1867 OF 2021(G) -10- other circumstances also which would justify grant of such direction in the facts of a particular case. 9. The fact that the area in which the petitioner's establishment is situated, is not a scheme covered area, is not disputed by the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent Union. The learned counsel would submit that steps are being taken by the 3[rd] respondent Welfare Board to extend the operation of the scheme to that area. 10. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer, would submit that at present, there is no law and order issues in the locality. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; - (i) The 2[nd] respondent shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of the 4[th] respondent Union or its members, in connection with the loading and unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment. -11- WP(C).No.1867 OF 2021(G) - (ii) In case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner or the workers engaged by her, from the side of the 4[th] respondent or its members, the petitioner shall move the 2[nd] 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 2[nd] respondent 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. No order as to costs. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/12/3 -12- WP(C).No.1867 OF 2021(G) ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 01/12/2020.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED FROM THE PANCHAYAT.** **EXHIBIT P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR REGISTRATION OF HEADLOAD WORKERS BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GRADED II, PALAKKAD CIRCLE II.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15/01/2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5** **TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED ON SUDDENLY EXHIBIT P4.** **EXHIBIT P6** **TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15/01/2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P7** **TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED ON SUDDENLY EXHIBIT P6.**