SHAJI WILSON v. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PONKUNNAM; CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION; SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION; C.A. THOMAS (SECRETARY, INTUC); APPUKUTTAN (SECRETARY, INTUC); APPUKUTTAN (SECRETARY, CITU); BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), REGIONAL OFFICE, MUNDAKKAYAM; KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W)** ## **PETITIONER :** **SHAJI WILSON AGED 37 YEARS S/O.S.WILSON, THUNIYAMBRAL THAZHE, PALLICKATHODU, ANIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.SUNIL SMT.AISWARYA VENUGOPAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE**| |---|---| ||**PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686506.**| |**2**|**THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION, MUNDAKKAYAM, PIN-**| ||**686513.**| |**3**|**THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION, MUNDAKKAYAM, PIN-**| ||**686513.**| |**4**|**C.A.THOMAS,**| ||**SECRETARY, INTUC, CHETHIYIL, KORUTHODE P.O.,**| ||**PALLIPPADI, MUNDAKKAYAM, PIN-686513.**| |**5**|**APPUKKUTTAN,**| ||**SECRETARY, INTUC, CHETHIYIL, KORUTHODE P.O.,**| ||**PALLIPPADI, MUNDAKKAYAM, PIN-686513.**| -2- WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W) |**6**|**APPUKKUTTAN,**| |---|---| ||**SECRETARY, CITU, CITU OFFICE, KORUTHODE, PIN-**| ||**686513.**| |**7**|**THE BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS),**| ||**REGIONAL OFFICE, MUNDAKKAYAM, PIN-686513.**| |**8**|**KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,**| ||**NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686002, REPRESENTED**| ||**BY ITS SECRETARY.**| ||**R8 BY SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB**| ||**R1 TO 4 BY SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT**| ||**PLEADER**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W) ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is a contractor by profession, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner, his employees and the machineries engaged in the work site of a four storied building at Koruthode near Mundakkayam town, in the property owned by one Lissy Sebastian. In the writ petition it is alleged that respondents 4 to 8, are causing obstruction to the construction of a building having a total plinth area of 5000 sq.ft., undertaken by the petitioner in a property which is lying nearly 35 meters below the road level. 2. 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. This Court issued urgent notice on admission by special messenger to respondents 4 to 7 returnable by 02.03.2021. The learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 8[th] respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 -4- WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W) and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 8[th] respondent. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 4 to 7. 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 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 -5- WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W) (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** **[(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 -6- WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W) 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, 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, -7- ## WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W) 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 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 -8- ## WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W) 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 other circumstances also which would justify grant of such direction in the facts of a particular case. 9. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is against the obstruction alleged to have been caused by respondents 4 to 8, who are the headload workers in the locality, in the construction of a building in the property in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that respondents 4 to 8 have absolutely no right to claim work in connection with the construction of the building. -9- WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W) 10. The learned Standing Counsel for the 8[th] respondent would submit that the area in which the petitioner is undertaking construction of the building is not a scheme covered area. 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 respondents 4 to 8 - or the headload workers under them, in connection with the construction of the building, in the property of one Lissy Sebastian, in case such construction is on the strength of a valid building permit. - (ii) In case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner or the workers engaged by him, from the side of respondents 4 to 8 or the headload workers under them, 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 -10- WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W) made by the petitioner, the 3[rd] 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/4/3 -11- WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W) ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND THE PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING.** **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.**