Snowman Logistics Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SNOWMAN LOGISTICS LTD., SY.NO.70/1, 70/4 AND 70/5, AROOR PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-688 534, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SHRI.MUHAMMED ASHIK.** **BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.RAJA KANNAN SRI.JAI MOHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. *2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,(CORRECTED) AROOR POLICE STAITON, SALEM KOCHI KANYAKUMARI HIGHWAY, CHANDIROOR, KERALA-688 535.** **R2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AROOR POLICE STATION, SALEM-KOCHI-KANYAKUMARI HIGH WAY, CHANDIROOR, KERALA688535.** **(ADDRESS OF R2 CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 18-3-2021 IN IA 1/2021 IN WP(C) 6918/2021). 3 INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES SANGH(BMS), REG. NO.03-5/93, BMS OFFICE, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 524, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY.** **WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)** 2 **4 FACILITY MANAGEMENT AND HR OUTSOURCING SERVICES, OLD PLA BHAVAN, 1ST STAGE, 1ST CROSS ROAD, PEENYA, BENGALURU-560 058, KARNATAKA, E-MAIL:prakash2641994@yahoo.com REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. 5 DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA, THONDANKULANGARA, THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-688 013.** **R3 BY ADV. SHRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH R3 BY ADV. SHRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL C THOMAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.B.SOORI R3 BY ADV. SHRI.BABU M. R3 BY ADV. SHRI.NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.HAARIS MOOSA R3 BY ADV. SMT.DEVYANI R3 BY ADV. SMT.NIKHITA ANN REBELLO R3 BY ADV. SHRI.ADESH JOSHI** **R1,R2 & R5 BY SRI SUNIL NATH N.B, GOVT. PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)** 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, which is stated to be an integrated temperature controlled logistics service provider operating on panIndia basis, in the field of storage and delivery of temperature sensitive products such as diary items, frozen poultry products, fruits, etc., has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer to provide adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner's employees, workers, customers and other associates who visit the petitioner's warehouse, from the actions of the 3[rd] respondent Union and other persons acting through them or at their behest. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent to ensure that the 3[rd] respondent or any persons acting through them or at their behest do not cause any obstruction to the smooth functioning of the petitioner's establishment or cause any obstruction to the free ingress and egress of the managerial staff, employees, workers, customers, other associates and vehicles of the petitioner to and from the petitioner's warehouse and premises; and a direction restricting and restraining the 3[rd] **WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)** 4 respondent or any persons acting through them or at their behest from staging dharna or strike or agitation or engaging in any activities of similar nature which is likely to obstruct the smooth functioning of the petitioner's establishment in any manner whatsoever, within a radius of 500 meters from the boundary wall of the petitioner's warehouse. In the writ petition, it is alleged that the members of the 3[rd] respondent Union is disturbing the warehousing and transportation activities of the petitioner claiming additional benefits over and above what they are legally entitled. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint dated 12.01.2021 before the 2[nd] respondent seeking police protection. Based on a complaint made by the 3[rd] respondent Union, the 5[th] respondent District Labour Officer has issued Ext.P3 notice dated 28.01.2021 to the petitioner. 2. On 18.03.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1, 2 and 5. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 3[rd] respondent, returnable by 23.03.2021. The petitioner was directed to take out notice to the 4[th] respondent by E-mail and to provide scanned copy of the **WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)** 5 writ petition to the registry on that day itself. This Court granted an interim order directing the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer to 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 3[rd] respondent union and its members. It was made clear that the above order will not stand in the way of the 3[rd] respondent union and its members having any protest/agitation in a democratic manner, without causing any obstruction to the smooth functioning of the petitioner's establishment. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3[rd] respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, in which certain labour issues are pointed out. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 5, the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent 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 **WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)** **==> picture [7 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** 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. 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, well-trained 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 7 ## **WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)** 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 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, **WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)** 8 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 boomerang and are anathema for the law. Within these parameters the right to strike is integral to collective bargaining. 9. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that in terms of the interim order of this Court dated **WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)** 9 18.03.2021, the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer has taken necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, in connection with any protest/agitation by the members of the 3[rd] respondent Union. 10. The learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent would submit that the Union has already raised certain labour issues, which are now pending conciliation before the 5[th] respondent District Labour Officer. 11. The learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent would submit that the 4[th] respondent contractor retrenched few of its workers, in accordance with law. The 4[th] respondent shall co-operate with the conciliation proceedings pending before the 5[th] respondent. 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 Station House Officer shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, in connection with any protest/agitation by the members of the 3[rd] respondent Union. ii) In case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner's employees, workers, customers and associates of the petitioner or threat to law and order in the locality, at the **WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)** 10 instance of the members of the 3[rd] respondent Union, the petitioner shall move the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer, with a proper 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. iv) This judgment will not stand in the way of the workers of the 3[rd] respondent Union staging any protest/agitation in a democratic manner, without adversely affecting the smooth functioning of the petitioner's establishment. v) Both parties shall co-operate with the conciliation proceedings pending before the concerned Labour Officer. ## **Sd/-** **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** JV 11 ## **WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED 02.09.2019 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.01.2021 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE DRIVERS. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.02.2021. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.03.2021 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**