Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 24, Cited by 1]

Madras High Court

Fenner (India) Limited vs )The Superintendent Of Police on 12 June, 2012

Author: S.Manikumar

Bench: S.Manikumar

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.06.2012

CORAM:
 
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

W.P.No.18723 of 2003




Fenner (India) Limited,
Textile Division, Unit-I
Manavasi,
Karur-639 108.
Represented by its Vice-President
Mr.R.Natarajan								... Petitioner

Vs.

1)The Superintendent of Police,
   Karur.

2)The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
   Kulithalai,
   Karur District.

3)The Inspector of Police,
   Mayanur, Krishnarayapuram Taluk,
   Karur District.

4)D.L.F. Represented by its
   Secretary Shri.P.Rajendran,

5)I.N.T.U.C. represented by its
   Secretary Shri.Manickam.

6)L.P.F represented by its Secretary
   Shri.V.Kumar.

7)Ambedkar Tholirsangam represented by its
   Secretary Shri.R.Senthil Kumar.

8)A.T.P .representd by its
   Secretary Shri.K.Tharmalinga.

9)C.I.T.U represented by its Secretary
   Shri.K.Durairaj.

10)B.M.S. Represented by its Secretary,
   Shri.R.Kunasekaran.

11)M.L.F represented by its Secretary,
    Shri.N.Mayilraj.							... Respondents




	Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3, to provide police protection to the petitioner's industry to run peacefully with its staff and willing workers and thereby suitably prevent the 4th to 11th respondents unions, their members, office bearers, agents and outside supporter, from assembling within a radius of 300 meters of the petitioner's factory premises from preventing the free ingress and egress of men, materials and vehicles.

		For petitioner		: Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj
		For RR1 to 3		: Mr.I.Arokiasamy, GA
		For RR4 to 6		: Mr.L.N.Praghasham
		For R10			: Mr.G.B.Saravanabhavan



O R D E R

The petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, engaged in the process of manufacturing yarn, exported to various countries. The company is also a supplier to inland markets.

2. According to the petitioner, the company has invested 15 crores for building and advanced automatic imported machinery to meet out the international quality. The employees of the company are paid wages, as per the settlement arrived at, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The settlement expired on 30.06.2002. However, it was allowed to continue, as per Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the meanwhile, Textile Trade Unions demanded revision of wages and that the dispute was pending before the Special Industrial Tribunal. Whileso, respondents 4 to 11, Employees Unions unilaterally raised similar demands and that their demands were also placed for conciliation, before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul. When the matter was under conciliation, all of a sudden, the trade unions threatened all the workers to go on illegal strike, without giving any notice in the prescribed manner. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, by his letter dated 13.06.2003, advised the striking unions to resume work and on receipt of the same, most of the workers started returning to work, but without any rhyme or reason, respondents 4 to 11 with a fear of losing their hold in the unions, threatened the workers, who returned for duty, with dire consequences and also prevented free ingress and egress of men and materials, including the workers willing to work. In this regard, a complaint was lodged by an individual worker with Mayanur Police Station under Complaint No.68/03. Taking advantage of inaction on the complaint, respondents 4 to 11, taking law in their own hands, prevented free ingress and egress of men, machine, materials and also free movement of vehicles, raw materials, finished products, and threatened the loyal workers willing to work.

3. The petitioner has further submitted that due to the illegal activities of the respondents 4 to 11, the company has lost several valuable export orders and put to serious financial hardship. Though a complaint was lodged with the Inspector of Police, Mayanur, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kulithalai, respondents 2 and 3, no effective action was taken and due to the recurrence of the abovesaid illegal acts by some disgruntled elements, there was a law and order problem. According to the petitioner, the very survival of the industry was put to stake, life and liberty of the staff and the loyal workers was also under threat. In these circumstances, the petitioner has sought for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3, to provide police protection to the petitioner's industry to run peacefully with its staff and willing workers and thereby prevent the 4th to 11th respondent unions, their members, office bearers, agents and outside supporters, from assembling within a radius of 300 metres of the petitioner's factory premises, from preventing free ingress and egress of men,materials, and vehicles

4. Record of proceedings shows that while admitting the writ petition, this Court on 07.07.2003, after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondents 1 to 3, has recorded the statement of the Learned Additional Government Pleader that respondents 1 to 3 have already provided sufficient police protection to the petitioner and further agreed to give police protection for free access, ingress and egress of men, materials and vehicles of the petitioner's industry. Accordingly, a direction has been issued to act upon the above undertaking without any default, until further orders. Though the respondents have sought for a prayer to vacate the interim direction, this Court by observing that the direction, not to assemble within 300 metres of the petitioner's factory premises is quite reasonable and acceptable, by order, dated 07.10.2003, has made the interim direction, absolute.

5. Placing reliance on the decisions made in M/s.Audco India Ltd., Vs. The Audco India Employees' Union and others, reported in 1989 II LLJ 200, George Vs. Circle Inspector of Police and others, reported in 1990 II LLN 1121, K.C.P. Ltd., Vs. Inspector of Police, Tiruvottiyur and Others, reported in 1993 I LLJ 365, Pathanamthitta Jilla T.T.Union Vs. Kurian Jacob, reported in 1993 I LLJ 440, ITC Emloyee's Union (by its General Secretary, Thiruvottriyur) Vs. Superintendent of Police and others, reported in 1994 I LLN 180, SRF, Ltd., (represented by its General Manager, S.Vijayakumar) Vs. Shriram Fibres Employees Union (represented by its President, A.Soundararajan), reported in 1994 II LLN 160, Kerala Spinning Mill Workers Union Vs. Kerala Spinners, Ltd., reported in 1994 I LLN 384, Kerala Spinning Mills Workers Union Vs. Kerala Spinners Ltd, reported in 1994 II 661, unreported decision in W.P.No.38056 of 2002, dated 08.10.2002 (Petal Shamrock Private Limited, Tirupur, Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore, and 28 others), Standing Conference of Public Enterprises Vs. Delhi Office and E.S.T. Employee Union and others, reported in 2003 (3) LLN 249, Capital Business System (Pvt) Ltd., Vs. General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union (Regd) and others, reported in 2003 LLR 684, and in Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs. Vidya Sagar Hospital Employees Union, reported in 2006 LLR 283, and the topography of the industry, Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that due to the continued unlawful activities of the members of the unions, respondents 4 to 11, there is a constant threat to the management, staff and others, from having ingress and egress to the company.

6. Taking this Court, through the judgments of various Courts as to how such illegal activities of the unions have been declared as affecting the economy of the country, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for a Writ of Mandamus, maintaining the distance as prayed for.

7. On the basis of the averments made in the vacate stay petition, Mr.L.N.Praghasham, learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable on facts and law. He further submitted that the petitioner had already filed a suit in O.S.No.95 of 2003, on the file of the Learned District Munsif Court, Kulithalai, on 04.06.2003, and in the said suit, the petitioner has prayed for an interim injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants, their men from in any manner, preventing the petitioner/plaintiff from taking over their cotton bales outside their Mill's premises. According to the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the fact of the filing the suit and the prayer for interim injunction have not been disclosed in the supporting affidavit to the present writ petition and having failed to obtain an interim order in the Civil Court, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, concealing the abovesaid fact and obtained an interim order in this writ petition. According to him, suppression of the abovesaid fact is apparent and therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and in such circumstances, the writ petition has to be thrown out in limine. Without prejudice to the above, learned counsel for the respondent also made another preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that the allegations, as to whether the members of the union, respondents 4 to 11, assembled in front of the petitioner's factory prevented ingress and egress out of the company; threatened the workers willing to work, caused financial hardship, prevented men and materials from entering into the company, are all matters of evidence and that therefore, finding on the above facts can be recorded, only by the Civil Court. He also submitted that in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, only after analysing the evidence recorded in the Civil Court, injunction has been granted, and therefore, the said decisions would not support the case of the petitioner on the maintainability of the writ petition.

8. He further submitted that when there is an effective alternative remedy by approaching the Civil Court, the relief sought for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not be granted, on the basis of mere averments made in the supporting affidavit. Referring to the order dated 18.07.2003 of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kulithalai, Karur District, learned counsel for the 4th respondent further submitted that the said order has been made on the basis of an interim direction granted in W.M.P.No.23421/2003 in W.P.No.18723/2003 and therefore, it need not be given any credence. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent further submitted that the cause of action for filing the writ petition, relates to allegations of the year 2003, and they do not exist as on today, and in such circumstances, Mandamus sought for need not be issued, and if issued, it would curtail the legitimate rights of the members of the unions and the workmen, from exercising their valuable rights, granted under the Trade Unions Act and other labour laws. He also submitted that if any lawful objections have to be made, by raising slogans and conducting demonstrations, and if the members of the union or the employees are to be kept away from a distance of 300 metres from the premises, then, even their voice would not be heard by the management, and such demonstrations would be a futile attempt to voice their demand or protest. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. By way of reply, Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the relief sought for in O.S.No.95 of 2003 on the file of the Learned District Munsif Court, Kulithalai, was for an injunction restraining the respondents/defendants unions, their men from in any manner, preventing the petitioner/plaintiff from taking cotton bales outside their Mills premises. Whereas, the relief sought for in this Writ Petition is for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3, to extend police protection to the petitioner's factory, for maintaining law and order, in front of the Mill's premises, in view of the constant threat to the management and workers. According to him, the Senior officers of the company were gheraod and threatened with dire consequences and left with no other alternative, police protection has been sought for. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the relief sought for, in the proceedings before the two forums are entirely different and that there is no willful suppression. He further submitted that even at the time of admission of this writ petition, this Court was satisfied that there was a serious threat of law and order problem and that is why the respondents 1 to 3 themselves came forward to give police protection. There were repetitive incidents of law and order problem, even during the currency of the interim order and taking note of the same, the interim order granted, was made absolute. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the cause of action cannot be said to have become extinct, due to lapse of time and considering the topography of the factory, attitude of the members of the respondents 4 to 11, Mandamus sought for, be issued, otherwise running of the company would be a serious problem. According to him, controlling law and order situation, at the factory site, would not amount to curtailing the right of the unions.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

10. Some of the contentious issues that arise for consideration in this writ petition are, (1) whether the petitioner has suppressed any material facts before this Court and obtained an interim order and on account of such suppression, the writ petition has to be dismissed in limine; (2) whether a writ petition for police protection would lie, when there is an alternative remedy; (3) whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for issuance of a Mandamus; (4) whether the evidence placed before this Court is insufficient for issuance of a writ or the management should be driven to a Civil Court, to lead evidence. The answers to many of the above questions can be deduced from the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which this Court deems it fit to consider at the threshold.

11. In M/s.Audco India Ltd., Vs. The Audco India Employees' Union and others, reported in 1989 II LLJ 200, the company is a manufacturer of industrial pipeline valves and oilfield equipment and that they are suppliers to public sector undertakings like, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Nuclear Power Corporation, Thermal Power Plants, etc. The company is an exporters. They filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and the members of the union, their associates etc, from preventing or obstructing casual, temporary and contract workers, customers, suppliers etc., from having ingress and egress out of the factory premises. They also sought for an injunction, restraining the defendants therein, from in any way preventing or obstructing the movement of the vehicles, materials, i.e., raw materials or some finished goods and from its sub-contractors for processing and restraining the workers from gathering and picketing within a radius of 100 yards from the entrance to the plaintiff's factory premises. While considering the right of the workmen to go on strike, and the impact on the loss likely to be caused to the company, Nation's economy and other aspects, Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Srinivasan (as he then was) at paragraphs 9, 10, 12 and 20, held as follows:-

While the right to carry on any occupation trade or business is a fundamental right recognised by Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India, right to strike work is not a fundamental right at all. Yet, strike has been recognised as a legitimate weapon in the armoury of labour by courts of law, and it is circumscribed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Right to strike can be exercised only after compliance with the requirements prescribed in the Act. Right to commence strike and continue the same is regulated and controlled by the provisions of the Act. Any strike in contravention of the provisions of the Act is illegal. Such illegal strike attracts penalty provided in Section 26 of the Act. A reading of Sections 2(n), 10(1), 12(1) and 22 makes it obviously clear that the legislature wanted to provide safeguard to the running of public utility services in order to obviate inconvenience to the general public and society large. In such cases, the right to strike is not taken away, but it is controlled with a view to prevent a few workers from holding the general public at ransom by indulging in lightning strikes in public utility services.
(Paras 9 and 10) Applying the ratio in the case reported in Coimbatore Periyar District Motor Transport Munnetra Sangam vs. M/s.Sivakumar Transportation etc (99 L.W. 409) held, the Court should help the company to carry on its activities and fulfil its obligations to supply materials to public sector undertakings national importance. Cessation of work in the factory would cause great hardship and heavy loss not only to the company, but it has got far reaching consequences of causing great inconvenience to other vital industries of the nation which will considerably affect the nation's economy, preventing the earning of foreign exchange and the reputation of the country in the field of International and Commerce will be at stakes. (Para 12) Though the workers cannot be prevented from gathering or picketing outside the premises of the factory, such gathering and picketing shall be peaceful and lawful and without in any manner violating the order of injunction passed in the case. (Para 20)

12. In George Vs. Circle Inspector of Police and others, reported in 1990 II LLN 1121, known as "Police Protection Cases", a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court considered the nature and exercise of power, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; when a writ of Mandamus can be issued, to give police protection to a citizen against obstruction and interference by a trade union. Maintainability of the writ petition was one of the issues considered by the Court. At paragraphs 7 to 10, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court extensively discussed the said aspect, and on the facts of the reported case, holding that the appellant therein, did not make out a prima facie case, warranting rule nisi, from the High Court, dismissed the Original Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

13. In K.C.P. Ltd., Vs. Inspector of Police, Tiruvottiyur and Others, reported in 1993 I LLJ 365, the prayer was to issue a writ of Mandamus or direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 therein, to provide police protection to the petitioner's factory, who was a manufacturer of sugar and to provide adequate security to the employees and customers of the petitioner therein, for their ingress and egress to the engineering unit of the said factory. There were some disputes between the Management and the workers. Some of the manufactured items were not allowed to be removed from the engineering unit. It was also alleged that the members of the union assembled every day and squatting around the premises, prevented ingress and egress. A police complaint was lodged. Protection was sought, to the non striking members and for removal of the manufactured items. The union filed a counter affidavit. Among other grounds, an objection has also been raised, regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Considering the said aspect, and after referring to various decisions, this Court held that the writ petition is maintainable and on the facts and circumstances of the said case, allowed the writ petition, granting police protection. Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the judgment, are as follows:-

8. Before dealing with the issue, it is necessary to refer to the case-law, with regard to the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as to whether in such matters, this Court can issue a writ of mandamus for police protection. A judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Coimbatore Periyar District Motor Transport Munnetra Sangam (By President) v. Sivakumar Transports, Tirupur and others (supra), is worth mentioning. After referring to certain decisions in that case, the Division Bench has held as follows :
"... The ratio of the judgments, in our opinion, is that if the preventing of removal of the goods would involve only the monetary interest of the management and no public interest is involved, the Court may consider not helping the management and not interfering in the dispute by way of any injunction orders. However, if the facts and circumstances are such as that it is just and necessary to permit the goods to be removed in order to prevent any waste or loss of goods, or that the acts in relation to which injunction is prayed for will have no effect on public interest, then, injunction against interference with the removal of goods shall not be granted. If not granting an injunction will tantamount to affecting public interest, the Court is duty bound to give such protection as is needed. Therefore, each case will have to depend on facts ...."

In Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. (by its Law Officer and Constituted Attorney, N. K. Mandal v. Superintendent of Police, St. Thomas Mount, Madras (supra), (Mohan, J. as he then was), has gone into the question elaborately with regard to the directions that can be given by this Court in regard to Police-protection in such matters, observed as follows-Para. 5, at page 299 :

"Strikes, lock-outs, satyagrahas and demonstrations are nothing new in our county. Promotion of social justice over the past few decades was, to a considerable extent, due to militant and agitational approach of the workmen and not, to any appreciable degree, due to condescension by the management. It is but true that in the process of securing to the workmen more amenities and privileges and better conditions of service, the Industrial Tribunals, Labour Courts, and the Courts of this country have played a vital role. A negative approach to lawful agitation by the working class to secure higher wages and better living conditions cannot be justified by resort to the plea of maintaining law and order in the industrial sector."

Though the abovementioned case arose in a petition filed by a customer, I am of the view that the principle enunciated in that case equally applies to the facts of the case on hand. It is seen that this judgment has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Binny Beach Engineering Workers' Union (represented by its General Secretary) v. Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd., Durgapur (represented by its Law Officer and Constituted Attorney, N. K. Mandal) and others Writ Appeal No. 11226 of 1987, dated July 27, 1987 though the judgment is in one line "dismissed". A special leave petition was also dismissed on July 29, 1987, by the Supreme Court.

Sri M. Srinivasan, J. in an unreported decision in Balaji Fabricators (P) Ltd. Madras (represented by its Managing Director) v. Inspector of Police, Thiruvanmiyur, Madras and others, Writ Petition No. 221 of 1990, dated March 28, 1990, while dismissing the writ petition, states thus :

".... What I have said above is sufficient to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the circumstances of the case. I refuse to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner ..."

On a perusal of the abovementioned Judgment, I could see that an argument was advanced before the learned Judge, that the judgment in Coimbatore Periyar District Motor Transport Munnetra Sangam (by President) v. Sivakumar Transport, Tirupur and others (supra) has been stayed by the Supreme Court, but ultimately it was found that the said appeal was dismissed as infructuous on December 8, 1989. As such, it should be seen that the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the abovementioned case still holds the field, so far I could see. Apart from that, that judgment is not relevant for deciding the issue before me. Another unreported judgment in Coromandel Prodorite (P.) Ltd., Madhavaram (represented by its Production Manager) v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengleput Range and others (supra) was also referred to. In that decision, the learned Judge, issuing a writ of mandamus, held as follows :

"... When it is a question of promoting the national interest, the rights of few workers cannot be put on an higher pedestal. The interests of the nation are more important than that of handful of workers. If the preventing of despatch of finished goods would involve only the financial interest of the management and does not affect anybody else, the Court may not help the management and interfere in the dispute. If the facts and circumstance are such that the non-despatch of the finished goods would affect the interest of the nation as a whole, it is the duty of this Court to interfere and prevent the workers from obstructing such despatch. It cannot be contended that the workers' right to strike would go to the extent of authorising them to harm the interests of the nation ....."

Another judgment of Srinivasan, J. in Audco India Ltd. v. Audco India Employees' Union and others (supra), is a case granting injunction against a union, pending a suit. I do not think it is necessary to refer to that judgment in detail for the purpose of this case. It is worthwhile to refer to a judgment in B. R. Singh and others v. Union of India and others 1989 - II - LLJ - 591, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the right to strike is not absolute under industrial jurisprudence, but subject to restrictions. The Supreme Court in that case, has further held that strike is a form of demonstration and that right to demonstrate (strike) is an important weapon in the armoury of workers. So far as this case is concerned, we are not concerned with a strike, but a lock-out. In fact, the abovementioned judgment of the Supreme Court has been referred to by Srinivasan, J., in the unreported decision in Coromandel Prodorite (P.) Ltd., Madhavaram (by its Production Manager) v. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Chengal-put Range and others (supra).

Another judgment of Kerala High Court in George v. Circle Inspector of Police, Mannarghat (supra), was cited before me. In that case, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case. In that case, the Division Bench has considered the question of pleading in a writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus and held that material facts having not been stated in the petition, no writ could issue under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that case, the Kerala High Court considered the powers of this Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus. After discussing the entire caselaw cited therein, the Division Bench in the abovementioned case, has refused to grant the relief on the ground that in the said petition, the details as to persons who obstructed the petitioner therein and as to why police did not give protection were absent in that pleadings. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition giving reasoning in para. 10 of the judgment. It is seen from that, the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has not been ruled out by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. So, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court which has been referred to (supra), holds the field and as such in my view each case has to be decided on the facts of the case.

9. The principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Coimbatore Periyar District Motor Transport Munnetra Sangam (by its President) v. Sivakumar Transports, Tirupur and others (supra), is very clear on this aspect, viz. if the preventing of removal of the goods would involve only the monetary interest of the management and no public interest is involved, the Court may consider not helping the management and not interfering in the dispute by way of any injunction orders, and that if the facts and circumstances are such as that it is just and necessary to permit the goods to be removed in order to prevent any waste or loss of goods, or that the acts in relation to which injunction is prayed for will have no effect on public interest, then, injunction against interference with the removal of goods should not be granted. I am of the view that if not granting an injunction will tantamount to affecting public interest, the Court is duty bound to given such protection as is needed. I am entirely in agreement with the judgment of Mohan. J. (as he then was) that police protection, if ordered, might crush lawful and peaceful strikes and demonstration. I am of the view that the order of this Court for police protection if available in the hands of unscrupulous management, should not be allowed to suppress the legitimate agitations. The Supreme Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V. R. Rudani and others 1989 - II - LLJ - 324 has recently considered the scope of issuance of a writ of mandamus and observed as follows in para 22, at page 331 :

"... The judicial control over the fast expending maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226 ..."

10. With regard to the contention raised by Sri K. Chandru, the learned counsel for the third respondent-union, that this is a case of suppression of facts, it is true that a suit has been filed before the filing of this writ petition and it came up for hearing. But it is seen that this writ petition has been presented on November 26, 1990 and the reasoning given in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner-company for non-mentioning about the suits is quite convincing. As I have already stated that the reliance made by Sri K. Chandru, the learned counsel for the third respondent-union, in George v. Circle Inspector of Police, Mannarghat (supra) is not helpful to him since the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has not laid down the proposition that no writ of mandamus would lie. Whether it is a lock-out or a strike, it is not for this Court to decide the issue in this writ petition, which may affect the case of the petitioner-management as well as the respondent-union.

11. Considering the issue in this case, I am of the view that with regard to the order of Sri Lanka Sugar Corporation of Colombo, the non-despatch of the articles would affect the interest of the nation, especially the international market. So also, with regard to the despatch of the articles to the Challapalli Sugars Ltd., at Lakshmipuram unit, (I am of the view) the interest of the nation and industrial growth are more important than the interest of handful of workers. Taking the view that the request made in this case would come within the reasoning of the Division Bench of this Court, cited supra, I am of the opinion, that the police protection should be ordered. I could see various requests made by the petitioner-company to the police authorities and it seems no action has been taken by them. I am of the view that they are duty bound to give protection for the removal of the articles mentioned in Schs. A and B in the petition. As such, a direction is to issue to respondents 1 and 2 herein to give police protection and the articles mentioned in Schs. A and B in the petition would be removed in the presence of the representatives of the third respondent-union to verify whether the articles to be removed are concerned with the orders placed with (1) Sri Lanka Sugar Corporation of Colombo and with (2). The Challapalli Sugars of India Ltd., at Lakshmipuram unit. With regard to weighment the drawings will show the weighment.

14. In Pathanamthitta Jilla T.T.Union Vs. Kurian Jacob, reported in 1993 I LLJ 440, police protection has been sought for by a rubber company, on the ground that the right of a company to take the work of slaughtering the trees and removal of latex was obstructed by a labour union. A learned single Judge granted police protection. On appeal by the union, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held that the appellant or its members cannot claim a legal right to obstruct somebody else getting his work done or doing his work in his own estate. The court further observed that even taking it for granted that the appellant had any legal right and the same is breached, then it is for the appellant to claim damages or sue for specific performance or go before the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act and seek for peaceful and lawful remedies. So saying, the Bench confirmed the decision made in the writ petition.

15. In ITC Emloyee's Union (by its General Secretary, Thiruvottriyur) Vs. Superintendent of Police and others, reported in 1994 I LLN 180, a Union preferred a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, restraining the Superintendent of Police and others, from giving police protection to the Management either for removal of goods. They also prayed for a direction to the police not to to interfere with the peaceful demonstration by the workers at or near the said factory in exercise of the trade union rights. In response to the same, the Management contended that they have to remove the goods out of the factory, to supply to their customers, who have placed orders for such goods and if supply was not made within the stipulated time, they would be put to severe loss. It was also contended that the business prospects would be affected and that there would be a loss of revenue. On the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court held that the petitioner therein, Viz.,. the Union cannot claim that they have a right to obstruct. Paragraph 19 of the judgment is requires reproduction.

On the facts and circumstances of this case, mentioned above, the petitioner cannot claim they have a right to obstruct removal of the goods and consequently the direction prayed for to restrain first and second respondents from giving police protection for removal of the goods cannot be granted and it is rejected. But the petitioner's claim for their peaceful demonstration before the said factory from a reasonable distance in exercise of their trade union rights cannot be interfered by the first and second respondents, police officers, not to interfere with the peaceful demonstration by the third respondent's workers near the factory from a reasonable distance, in exercise of their trade union rights.

16. In SRF, Ltd., (represented by its General Manager, S.Vijayakumar) Vs. Shriram Fibres Employees Union (represented by its President, A.Soundararajan), reported in 1994 II LLN 160, a company declared as a public utility service, filed a suit, seeking for an njunction restraining the members of the union from obstructing the officers and other willing workmen from entering into the factory premises, to restrain the respondent union from obstructing the movement of the vehicles to and from the factory, carrying raw materials and finished goods and not to hold any demonstrations within the radius of 100 yards of the factory gate. The Management has also sought for police protection, on ground that there was apprehension of danger to the person and property, due to unlawful activities of its workmen. It was also alleged that without giving proper strike notice, the work was disrupted. Though the respondents opposed the abovesaid prayer, the respondent admitted that notice for strike was not given, but further contended that even assuming that the strike was illegal, the bargaining power of the respondent, striking workmen, cannot be crushed, by granting an injunction in favour of the Management and if any police protection is granted, it would spoil the atmosphere providing upper-hand to the Management against the weaker section of the society namely, workmen. Dealing with the abovesaid rival contention as to whether Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, would be a bar for granting injunction, when violence was apprehended, this Court held that when the workmen of public utility service, go on strike without notice, they have no right to prevent or obstruct other workers, customers to have ingress and egress to the factory and also to prevent the movement of vehicles and raw materials and finished goods, from and to factory, for the purpose of processing. The Court further held that the workmen have a right to go on strike, to bargain with the management, but at the same time, they cannot resort to violence and agitational approach, against which, the Management is entitled to seek for police protection. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court directed that demonstration within the factory premises cannot be allowed. The Court taking note of the distance fixed, in the cases referred, directed the respondent, to hold demonstrations at a distance of 50 meters outside the factory premises and made the interim injunction granted absolute.

17. In Kerala Spinning Mill Workers Union Vs. Kerala Spinners, Ltd., reported in 1994 I LLN 384, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court considered the objections of the trade union that police protection cannot be ordered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that it would tilt the balance of bargaining power in favour of the Management. The supporting affidavit to the writ petition was to the effect that the Mill was under lockout and that the Management was not in a position to remove the finished goods, semi-finished products and raw materials from the factory, for the purpose of performing their contractual obligations and therefore, in the abovesaid circumstances, sought for police protection. Referring to some of the rulings, the Division Bench at paragraphs 12 and 13, held as follows:-

12. The rulings referred to by the appellant's counsel, each of which was rendered by various learned single Judges of this Court, far from supporting the appellant, in fact, go against them. All that the rulings state is that police protection orders should not be given by the High Court under Article 226 for the mere asking of it. The discretion has to be soundly exercised. But, at the same time, when there have been acts of violence by workmen against the person and property of the employer, if the police, to whom the employer has resorted to, do not give adequate and timely protection, the employer must have a legal remedy to enforce his right to protection of his person and property. We are governed by the rule of law and the State has a solemn duty towards its citizens for protection of their person and property. Whether any particular situation deserves grant of police protection from the court, it is for the court to decide, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the past conduct of the workman and the reasonableness of the apprehension of the employer in regard to the likelihood of the recurrence of such conduct on the part of the workmen. It cannot be said that, even in cases of proof of past violent conduct of the workmen, police protection to the employer if granted by Court, would tilt the balance of bargaining power in favour of the management. If the rulings cited by the appellant lay down any such broad proposition, we respectfully dissent from the same.
13. We may add that if in a case of violent acts or obstruction or gherao by the workers, the management is not granted protection, the balance of the bargaining power may, indeed, tilt in favour of the workmen. It is the duty of the court to see that peace is restored and parties are allowed to come to the negotiation table, without the balance being tilted either way. We are of the view that grant of police protection to the management, if the court considers it to be necessary on the facts of a given case, only restores normalcy and cannot be said to put the management in any advantageous position. The position between management and workmen is one of inter-dependence and it is the duty of the court to see that one party does not, by resort to unlawful methods, such as gherao, obstruction or violence, compel the management to accede to terms which, but for such compulsion, the management would not have acceded to.

On the facts and circumstances of the reported case, the directions granted by a learned single Judge, giving police protection was also confirmed on appeal.

18. In Kerala Spinning Mills Workers Union Vs. Kerala Spinners Ltd, reported in 1994 II 661, there was a dispute with regard to quantum of bonus. The workers started with strike, dharna which lead to violence. They started assembling in front of the administrative office. Production was also reduced. There was also an alleged threat to the Chief Executive. In these circumstances, the company approached the police officers for protection to the person and property of the Management and also for free ingress and egress of persons and goods (both finished products and raw materials). The Management filed a writ petition, which was allowed. Being aggrieved, the union filed an appeal. The primary contention of the union was that police protection order cannot be granted under Article 226 to the Management, merely for the sake of asking and that it would tilt the balance of bargaining power in favour of the Management. On the contra, it was contended that there is no hard and fast rule that the writ petition would not lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

19. In an unreported decision in W.P.No.38056 of 2002, dated 08.10.2002 (Petal Shamrock Private Limited, Tirupur, Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore, and 28 others), this Court has granted a direction to the police, to provide protection to the petitioner therein, so as to enable the petitioner to run the factory smoothly, thereby preventing any hindrance or any interference by any one in any illegal manner, much less by the respondents therein, within a distance of of 300 metres from the petitioner's factory, thus facilitating from free ingress and egress of men, materials and vehicles into the said premises.

20. In Standing Conference of Public Enterprises Vs. Delhi Office and E.S.T. Employee Union and others, reported in 2003 (3) LLN 249, a suit was filed by the plaintiff therein, alleging that there were some disputes between the management and the workman, regarding salary deposit of PF and ESI contribution etc. Reference was also made by the Government. Pending disposal of the dispute, the members of an union, defendants therein, were alleged to have suspended the operational services, indulged in sabotage activities of the sewerage and power and water supply, as a result of which, working in the complex, in which, the Central Government undertakings were housed, was paralysed. The workmen were also alleged to have threatened to resort to "Chakka Jam". A police complaint was lodged and protection was sought for. The abovesaid incidents inter alia resulted in institution of a suit, for permanent injunction, restraining the members of the union from indulging in any act of commission or omission which may operate to the prejudice of a public enterprise. Keeping in mind the protection that has to be granted to the plaintiff to run the establishment without coercion, pressure and illegal interference and on the basis of the unrebutted evidence let in on behalf of the plaintiff therein, the Delhi High Court at paragraphs 20 and 21, passed the following orders:-

21. Keeping in view the clear and categorical pleadings of the plaintiff and the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff which is on record Along with the exhibited documents, it stands established that unless the defendants are restrained in the appropriate manner, then, in that case, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury as the operation of the plaintiff would come to stand still and it will amount to grave and continuing violation of the legal rights of plaintiff. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts that the right of the workman/employee is only to peacefully ventilate their grievances and to have collective bargaining and not to cause the violation of the constitutional and legal rights of the management/plaintiff.

22. The Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff has further submitted that the remedy should be moulded to the facts and circumstances and requirement of each case. Accordingly, I consider it proper to pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants No. 5 to 19 from carrying out any violent demonstrations or any activity or omission which disrupts or has the effect of disrupting to the providing amenities, ingress and egress and good maintenance and of the building and from indulging in any act of commission or omission which may operate to the prejudice of the plaintiff, provided that defendants No. 4 to 19 shall be entitled to hold a peaceful demonstration or dharna, or public meeting or protest after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities at a place which is beyond the distance of 100 metres from the boundary walls and gates of the plaintiff building at 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, subject to further condition that defendants shall not indulge in any defamation or slander or distributing any pamphlet containing defamatory or scandalous material or abusive slogans or otherwise preventing any workman/employee/officer from discharging his duties.

21. In Capital Business System (Pvt) Ltd., Vs. General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union (Regd) and others, reported in 2003 LLR 684, a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff therein, to restrain the defendants union and others from holding dharna/demonstration/strike/gate meeting/slogan shouting within the radius of 200 metres from the office of the plaintiffs and the residence of the directors. Injunction was also sought for from causing obstruction to the ingress and egress of the Directors, staff and suppliers. An ex parte injunction was granted. After taking note of the objections and the evidence, the Delhi High Court, at paragraphs 12 and 13, ordered as follows:-

12. There is un-rebutted testimony of the plaintiff to the effect that in the present case, in the event of any demonstration, strike, dharna, gate meeting, slogan shouting etc. being organized by the defendants, there would be every likelihood of breach of peace and disruption in the working of the establishment of the plaintiff at even offices/ residence, and the same would result into a law and order problem and public nuisance at such places.
13. Equally there is unrebutted deposition of the plaintiff to the effect that there is also a likelihood that the ingress and egress of men and material would be affected at such places, wherever demonstrations, strike, dharna, gate meeting, slogan shouting etc. are likely to be held, which will seriously effect that security system and may lead to huge financial losses apart from prejudice to the Government clients as the Plaintiff is a security printer, and every document printed is valuable.

Finding that the plaintiff had established a strong and prima facie case and also taking note of the balance of convenience, the Court granted injunction as prayed for.

22. In Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs. Vidya Sagar Hospital Employees Union, reported in 2006 LLR 283, an hospital union went on strike, causing disturbance to the ingress and egress of the plaintiff, its office bearers, patients, visitors and other persons. A suit was filed for declaration that the strike threatened by Dr.Vidyasagar Hospital Employees' Union as illegal and a restraint order was sought for against the members of the union from holding any demonstrations, dharnas, slogan, shouting and in any way blocking the ingress and egress of the plaintiff, its office bearers, patients, visitors and other persons visiting the hospital upto a distance of 500 metres from the radius of the hospital known as VIMHANS, 1, Institutional Area, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi.

23. The Delhi High Court among other issues considered as to whether the employees' union have a legitimate right to go on strike and disrupt the functioning of the employer from performing their duties. After going through the several judgments, the Delhi High Court has ordered as follows:-

1)Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain suit of this nature.
2)Immunity given to the Unions under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, does not extend to conduct those acts which may amount to offence.
3)Peaceful demonstration is a fundamental right of the unions/employees.

It would be legitimate for the workers to go on strike, but at the same time, exercising such rights, Unions/employees cannot disrupt the functioning of the employer or obstruct willing workers from performing their duties. They cannot indulge in the acts of violence, physical assault, intimidation, threats, etc. There is no right of the unions/employees to hold demonstrations, at the residence of the employer. This has been specifically prohibited by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and it amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the unions. It may be the right on the part of the union to hold peaceful demonstration, however, such demonstration cannot be allowed to become violent or intimidating in nature. The safety of those visitors who are visiting the employers' premises as well as those willing workers including their smooth ingress and egress is also to be ensured. This balance is to strike between the two competing and conflicting interests. The Courts have devised the methods to ensure it by fixing the distance from the employers premises within which such demonstration, etc. would not be permissible meaning thereby, the Unions can resort to demonstrations only beyond a particular distance. In this way, they can hold peaceful demonstration and at the same time, it should be ensured that such peaceful demonstration does not relegate the aforesaid rights of the employer.

24. On the facts and evidence, the Delhi High Court granted an injunction that the defendants therein can hold peaceful demonstration at a distance of 200 metres from the outer radius of the plaintiff's hospital.

25. Reverting back to the case on hand, in O.S.No.95 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai, the petitioner has sought for an injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants, their men from in any manner, preventing the petitioner/plaintiff from taking over their cotton bales outside their Mills' premises. The cause of action for filing of the writ petition as per the supporting affidavit is that there was prevention of the workers from resuming duty and that there was also a threat to the life and property. It is also alleged that the alleged that the functioning of the mill was stalled due to unlawful activities. A complaint has also been lodged by an individual workman with Mayanur Police Station. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that members of the union, respondents 4 to 11, have prevented ingress and egress of men, machine, material and also free movement of vehicles, raw materials, finished products and that they also threatened the staff and loyal workers with dire consequences. A representation has been submitted to the Inspector of Police, Mayanur, with the copies marked to the Superintendent of Police and the District Collector. Perusal of the same shows that on 18.06.2003, Forenoon, when some of the loyal workers wanted to attend duty, one Mr.Manoharan and six others holding position in the union, assembled in front of the main gate, assaulted the workers, who were willing to attend duty, torned their clothes and threatened them with deadly weapons, such as Knife, Aruval and other weapons, with dire consequences and in such circumstances, the General Manager of the petitioner company, apprehending danger to the life and property of the willing workers and the company, has lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police and the higher officials stated supra. The management has also alleged that on 20.06.2003, there was a recurrence of another incident, where some of the permanent workers were intercepted and manhandled. Perusal of the material on record also shows that on 02.07.2003, a meeting has been held in the presence of the Tahsildar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Management and the representatives of the union.

26. Reading of the letter dated 03.07.2003, of the General Manager of the petitioner's company, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Karur, also shows that even the representatives of the Management were not allowed to have access to the mill and that the members of DLF, LPF and ATP, Employees Unions, respondents 4, 6 and 8 respectively, squatted in the campus of the office of the Tahsilder, thus preventing the Car of the Management representatives from going out of the Tahsildar's office. The complaint addressed to the Superintendent of Police further shows that the vehicles carrying the Vice President, General Manager, Personnel Officer, were banged and that there was also a threat to set fire to the vehicles. The District Collector by his letter dated 21.07.2003, has directed the Additional Superintendent of Police, Karur, to take appropriate action against one Mr.Kannathasan, a person working in Telephone Department, who had unnecessarily interfered with the affairs of the company. The District Collector has also observed that it is the said individual, who had induced the workers, preventing the employees from attending duty. Therefore, the District Collector has instructed the police to register an FIR and take appropriate action against those who contravene the directions of this Court. Reading of the complaints addressed to the various authorities and the averments made in the supporting affidavit clearly shows that the cause of action for filing the suit and the writ petition is entirely different. In the above factual backdrop, it cannot be said that there was no cause of action for filing a writ petition, seeking for police protection. What is suppression of material facts is explained in Paragraph 12 of the judgment in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and others reported in 2007 (6) SCC 120, as follows:

12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question.

27. Having regard to the material on record enclosed in the typed set of papers and the relief sought for, this Court is of the view that there is no suppression of material fact, enabling this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands, warranting dismissal of the writ petition. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents union contended that the cause of action does not survive as on today, as the alleged agitations were made in the year 2003, regarding revision of wages and that therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition, this Court is not inclined to accept to the same, in view of the serious allegations levelled against the members of the union, and when the apprehension to the life and property of the senior representatives, the Management and the property of the company has been substantiated. Even the District Collector in his letter dated 21.07.2003 addressed to the Additional Superintendent of Police has clearly observed that there were illegal activities, preventing the lawful workers from attending duty.

28. The workers have a right to voice their grievance by resorting to strike, dharna or demonstration or in any other lawful manner, but at the same time, they cannot exceed their limits, by preventing the other workers from having ingress and egress to the factory industry, prevent raw materials from being taken to the factory, obstructing removal finished goods, movement of vehicles, or such other activities carried on by the management, for running the business. Any activity not permissible in law or recognised as a right, under the industrial laws, would affect the interest of both the workmen and the management and as observed by the Courts, it affects the interest of the nation as a whole, and when police protection is sought for, it is the duty of the Courts to consider the facts and materials in entirety and satisfy, as to whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. There is no hard and fast rule that a prayer of police protection should be refused solely on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. By resorting to strike or dharna or demonstrations, the workers have no right to intimidate or harm or physically manhandle the staff, management or other willing workers. Their plea of bargaining with the management by resorting to lawful activities, can be within such limits, without causing hindrance to the running of the factory or an industry, and under the guise of voicing their grievance, by engaging in strike, dharna, demonstration etc., they cannot resort to any activities not permissible in law and that the same can always be taken note of by the police, whenever they take cognizance, either on their own, or on the basis of any complaint. If adequate steps are not taken by the police and protection to life and property is not given, then, the management cannot be said to be remediless or to be driven only to Civil Court to seek remedy. Efficacy of the remedy depends upon the gravity of the situation prevailing inside or at the premises. The magnitude of threat and intimidation, the activities carried on by the striking workmen exceeding their recognised rights under the industrial laws, prevention of the workers to have ingress and egress to the factory or the industry, the right of the management to run the factory or the industry with the limited staff and workers, the contractual obligations which a management is constrained to perform and so on and so forth are all matters to be considered. Any unfair labour practice on the part of the union or the workers under the guise of exercising their right under the industrial laws cannot be allowed to be continued, ignoring the safety of the workers, or staff or management willing to work in the factory or the industry, as the case may be.

29. No doubt, strike or dharna or demonstration or protest in any other lawful manner, a recognised right under the industrial laws, can be used as a tool for voicing the grievance of the workmen to protect the rights guaranteed under the industrial laws or to protest against any unlawful labour practice on the part of the management and such lawful protest would be within the bargaining power of the union and the workers. At the same time, under the guise of exercising right, it is not permissible to allow them to exceed their limits, by intimidation, or causing harm to others. When acts of violence of the union or its members against the person and property of the management and other willing workers is complained of, it is the duty of the law enforcing agencies to protect. If there is inaction or failure on the part of the police, then there is every possibility of altercation between the striking workers and others, who is not interested in strike. The bargaining power of the union or the workers can be used only as a tool for arriving at an amicable settlement and it cannot be used as a weapon to prevent the management from exercising their constitutional rights. But for the existence of a factory or industry as the case may be, the workers cannot seek to enforce the rights. Equally, but for the hard work labour and sincerity of the workers, the industry or the factory also cannot survive or achieve the industrial growth. The growth of a factory or industry depends upon equal participation of both the management and the workers and they are like two hands. Both have to function to the fullest operational capacity. By doing acts not permissible in law, one cannot take advantage of the other. Man power should not try to muzzle the investors. Nor the money power should make the other meekly surrender to their rights guaranteed under the industrial laws. Both have to co-exist and they are interdependent. It is not uncommon that by the arbitrary and unreasonable decisions of certain managements, many workers suffer due to lock-out and some time even closure. Also, it cannot be forgotten that in some cases, activities not permissible in law have paralysed the functioning of the industry or the factory, resulting in lock out or closure. If removal of finished goods, raw materials or such other activities is not permitted, it would certainly spoil the atmosphere at the premises of the factory or the industry as the case may be. At the same time, while exercising the right to go on strike, dharna, demonstrations etc., the Union or the workers cannot be permitted to resort any violent or agitational approach which may lead to a law and order situation. When a solemn duty of the law enforcing agency in not providing protection to the person and property is complained of, with the specific averments and materials, it is the duty of the Court to consider all the circumstances including the conduct of the workmen, past and present and also the reasonableness of the apprehension of the employer with regard to the likelihood of recurrence of any activity which would affect the interest of the management and the workers. By granting police protection, the bargaining power of the union or the workers is not taken away, but by prevention of activities not permissible in law, ingress and egress of raw materials, finished goods and such other activities etc,. are ensured. By granting police protection, it cannot be said that the union or the workers would be compelled to concede or give up their demands, nor it could be said that the police protection puts the management in an advantageous position of exercising their bargaining power with the workers. Police protection is to safeguard the life and property. When smooth functioning of the factory or the industry as the case may be, depends upon the lawful activities of both the management and the workers and when one cannot function without the other, it is the duty of the Court to see that bargaining power is not tilted either way, by allowing either of the parties to continue in any activity not permissible in law. When the union or the workers resort to strike, dharna, or demonstrations etc., the natutral consequences is that the normal functioning of the unit would be reduced and from thereon, the bargain starts. It cannot be said that if strike, dharna or demonstration is withdrawn, the bargain comes to an end, still it may or may not continue, depending upon the demands or enforcement of their rights.

30. Right to carry on any occupation or trade or business is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India. At the same time, right to strike work, though a recognised right, is not a fundamental right. Such a right can be exercised only as per the provisions of the industrial laws. It cannot exceed to the extent of preventing ingress and egress of raw materials, finished goods and other activities, attracting penal provisions of the statute. Union or the workers cannot affect the rights and interest of the other persons who are willing to work, by doing acts not permissible in law. Militant and agitational approach of certain unions or the workers affecting the rights and interest of the other workers, management, staff and indulging in such continuous activities affecting the interest of the nation cannot be allowed to continue. It should be borne in mind that there is a duty cast on the management to protect the rights and interest of the workers who are willing to work. If there is any altercation or an untoward incident or a grave situation leading to law and order problem, on account of the difference between the striking workers and others, the management cannot simply watch, whatever happens, inside or at the premises of the factory or the industry, as the case may be, as if it is only a conflict of interest between the striking workers and others. If there are any incidents leading to a strong apprehension attracting the penal provisions of the statute, the management is duty bound to bring it to the notice of the law enforcing agency to prevent such occurrences in future and to take appropriate action. If adequate action is not taken and protection is not given, then it is always open to the management to invoke the public law remedy, subject to the limitation of satisfying issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. When the management has a duty to protect the life and property of the workers, fulfil their contractual obligations, they have a right to continue running the trade or business with the limited staff, as any strike, dharna or demonstrations would reduce the number of workers. The contention that the bargaining power of the union or the workers would be taken away by giving police protection, cannot be accepted.

31. From the plethora of decisions, stated supra, it could be deduced that remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek for police protection, protecting the life and property of a citizen, cannot be denied and it can be granted against those who obstruct the legitimate activities of the management, subject to the petitioner making out a case, for granting appropriate directions, in the nature of writ. The existence of an alternate remedy is not a bar and whether such an alternate remedy is efficacious or not, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the burden is on the petitioner to prove that the alternate remedy is not efficacious. The exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as described by the Supreme Court of India is a "reserve power" and it can be exercised to meet extraordinary or special or grave situation or emergencies, to remedy palpable injustice or hardship, when a person, seeking for issuance of Mandamus has satisfied the superior court with proper pleading and evidence, for issuance of a writ of Mandamus. On the facts and circumstances of this case, it could be deduced that after the passing of an interim order, there has been a repetition of an activity, contrary to the provisions of the statute, warranting this Court to make the interim order absolute.

32. By placing material evidence, the petitioner has satisfied this Court for invoking extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only question to be considered at this length of time is whether the members of the union, respondents 4 to 11, have to be kept away at a distance of 300 meters from the factory premises to hold demonstrations, slogans or conduct any of the lawful activities as per the Trade Unions Act and other labour laws, permanently, by issuance of a Mandamus. The contention that if they have to stay away at a distance of 300 meters, and even their voice would not be heard by the Management deserves to be considered and having regard to the rights granted under the Industrial Laws to the workmen, and the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that the Mandamus sought for has to be granted, subject to a restriction of 200 meters from the factory premises, to hold dharna, demonstration etc.

33. Hence, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 to 3, to provide police protection to the petitioner's industry to run peacefully with its staff and willing workers and the respondents unions 4 to 11 respectively, their members shall hold demonstrations, slogans or conduct any of the lawful activities, as per the Trade Unions Act and other Industrial Laws, 200 meters away from the petitioner's factory premises.

34. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as indicated. No costs.

nb To

1)The Superintendent of Police, Karur.

2)The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kulithalai, Karur District.

3)The Inspector of Police, Mayanur, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District