Royal Command Protection Group 'Deepa' v The Commissioner of Police (Kochi City) and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.6119 OF 2021(L)** ## **PETITIONER:** **ROYAL COMMAND PROTECTION GROUP 'DEEPA', 34/1414B (38/280), CHUTTUPADUKARA, ARAKKAKADAVU ROAD, OPP. OBERON MALL, EDAPALLY P. O., COCHIN - 602024, REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL HEAD, PRASANNAKUMAR P., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. K. V. PRABHAKARAN, RESIDING AT PADINJARE MADATHIL (H), T. V. PURAM P. O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 606.** **BY ADVS. SRI. P. SATHISAN SMT. DONA AUGUSTINE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (KOCHI CITY) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ABDUL KALAM MARG, MARINE DRIVE P. O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 682 011. *2 SUB - INSPECTOR OF POLICE (CORRECTED) ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, THANIKKAL, KEERTHI NAGAR RD, KEERTHI NAGAR, MAMANGALAM, ELAMAKKARA P. O., ERNAKULAM – 682 026.** ***CORRECT ADDRESS OF R2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, THANIKKAL, KEERTHI NAGAR ROAD, KEERTHI NAGAR, MAMANGALAM, ELAMAKKARA P. O, ERNAKULAM – 682 026.** **(ADDRESS OF R2 CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 17-032021 IN IA 1/2021 IN WP(C) 6119/2021).** W.P(C).No.6119 OF 2021 2 - **3 DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION OFFICE OF SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, CTSD COMPLEX, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA P. O., ERNAKULAM – 682 020, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (TECHNOLOGY), KERALA LSA.** **4 M/S. S. H. INFRANET MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS (LLP) 46/2678 B3, NANDANAM BUILDING KANIYAPPILLY ROAD, CHAKKARAPARAMBU, ERNAKULAM – 682 028, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **5 KERALA STATE MOBILE TOWER WORKERS UNION (AITUC) P. S. SMARAKAM, VRINDAVAN GARDENS, PATTOM PALACE P. O., TRIVANDRUM – 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6 THE PRESIDENT KERALA STATE MOBILE TOWER WORKERS UNION (AITUC), P. S. SMARAKAM, VRINDAVAN GARDENS, PATTOM PALACE P. O., TRIVANDRUM – 695 004.** - **7 BHARATHIYA PRIVATE TELECOM MAZDOOR SANGH (BPTMS) BMS KERALA, BHARATHIYA MAZDOOR SANGH, MARAYIL LINE, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI - 18, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.** **8 DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER, OLIMUGHAL, VAYU SENA ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P. O., VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANAD, KERALA – 682 021.** **9 THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C), OLIMUGHAL, VAYU SENA ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P. O., VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANAD, KERALA – 682 021.** W.P(C).No.6119 OF 2021 3 **10 M/S. TOWER VISION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED BUILDING NO.32/1663 B2, 2ND FLOOR, BCG ESTATE, NH-BYPASS ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P. O., COCHIN – 682 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL.** **SRI. SUNIL NATH N.B - GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C).No.6119 OF 2021 4 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is stated to be a Public Utility Service Provider in telecom sector rendering operations, maintenance and engineering services to Telecom Infrastructure Providers and Telecom Service Providers, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection for uninterrupted functioning and operation of the petitioner company from its office, abating obstruction and interference from Trade Unions arrayed as respondents 5, 6 and 7 and its members. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the properties of petitioner and the lives of its staff. 2. In this writ petition it is alleged that on account of certain disputes the workers of respondents 4 to 7 are causing obstructions to the smooth functioning of the establishment. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 compliant before the 1[st] respondent Commissioner of Police and Exts.P6 and P8 complaints before the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer, seeking police protection and W.P(C).No.6119 OF 2021 5 thereafter moved this writ petition before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 3. On 09.03.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India took notice on admission for respondents 3, 8 and 9. Urgent notice on admission was ordered to respondents 4 to 7 and 10 by special messenger, returnable by 16.03.2021. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. 4. On 16.03.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an application to implead the concerned Station House Officer. The learned Government Pleader sought further time to get instructions. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents 3, 8 and 9. Despite service of notice none appears for respondents 4 to 7 and 10. 6. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate and W.P(C).No.6119 OF 2021 6 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 (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance with the law. 7. Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus; W.P(C).No.6119 OF 2021 7 "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." 8. 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 principle in **Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470]** . 9. 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 W.P(C).No.6119 OF 2021 8 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 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 W.P(C).No.6119 OF 2021 9 boomerang and are anathema for the law. Within these parameters the right to strike is integral to collective bargaining. 10. The learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that there are certain labour disputes between the petitioner and the workers and at present there is no law and order issues. In case of any law and order issues, the petitioner can certainly approach the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer, in which event he shall render necessary police assistance. 11. 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, in connection with any protest/agitation made by the members of respondents 4 to 7. - (ii) In case there is any threat to the life of the employees, staffs of the petitioner, 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 2nd 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 W.P(C).No.6119 OF 2021 10 ## decisions referred to supra. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the workers or members of respondents 4 to 7 staging any protest/agitation peacefully in a democratic manner. No order as to costs. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN** **JUDGE** SPR 11 W.P(C).No.6119 OF 2021 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF M/S. ROYAL COMMAND PROTECTION GROUP (A UNIT OF M/S. AVIATION BABA AERO SERVICES PRIVATE LTD.) DATED 24.09.2015. EXHIBIT P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER DATED 04.02.2021. EXHIBIT P1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY DATED 04.02.2021.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DRAFT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT DATED 25.01.2021. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BANNER TIED IN FRONT OF THE OFFICE OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF CONCILIATION HELD ON 23.02.2021. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.01.2021 WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.02.2021 WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO.3208 OF 2021 DATED 09.02.2021. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR POLICE PROTECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.02.2021 WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.**