Karnataka High Court
M/S Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2013
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.5056-5060/2013 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
M/s PARLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,
15, K.M. Stone,
Tumkur Road,
(N.H. NO.4),
Bangalore-560 073. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri Subramanya, Adv.,)
AND :
1. State of Karnataka
By its Principal Secretary
Department of Home,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore-01.
2. Director General of Police,
State of Karnataka,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore-560 002.
3. Commissioner of Polcie,
Infantry Road,
2
Bangalore District,
Bangalore-560 025.
4. Asst. Commissioner of Police,
Yeshwanthpur,
Bangalore-22.
5. Inspector of Police,
Peenya Police Station,
Bangalore-22.
6. Parle Workers Union,
25, Byrappa layout,
Nagashettihalli,
Bangalore-560 094
Represented by its President .
..Respondents
(By Sri Indiresh, HCGP for R-1 to R-5;
Sri Subba Rao for Sri K.S. Subramanya, Adv. for R-6)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ,
order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing
Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to grant protection to the
petitioner's factory as detailed in Annexure-V and also
facilitate for maintaining law and order inside the premises
by evicting the workmen who are unauthorisedly
assembling.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing
in 'B' group this day, the Court made the following :
3
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed praying for the following reliefs:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to grant protection to the petitioner's factory as detailed in Annexure-V and also facilitate for maintaining law and order inside the premises by evicting the workmen who are unauthorizedly assembling."
2. Sri Subramanya, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that members of the 6th respondent - Union are resorting to violent illegal activities including gherao, dharna, picketing etc., inspite of the order dated 31.1.2012 passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No.6116/2011 and the order dated 16.2.2012 passed by this Court in MFA No.1642/2012 within the petitioner's premises. According to the petitioner's counsel, the members of the 6th respondent - Union are taking bath, cooking food and 4 holding dharna within the premises of the petitioner- factory in derogation of the interim order granted by the Civil Court as well this Court.
Sri Subba Rao, learned senior advocate for Respondent No.6 submits that members of the Respondent No.6 - Union will strictly abide by the interim order dated 16.2.2012 passed by this Court in MFA NO.1642/2012.
3. The petitioner had moved the Civil Court in O.S. No.6116/2011. In the said suit, the order of Temporary Injunction was sought for. After hearing, the following interim order was granted on 21.9.2011:
"1. The defendants or anybody claiming through them shall not obstruct the ingress and egress of the plaintiff's men, materials, customers, managerial staff, security personnel and others and also their vehicles, in and out of the suit schedule property.5
2. The defendants or anybody claiming through them shall not hold any demonstration within a radius of 50 meters from the suit schedule property.
3. However, the defendants are at liberty to hold demonstration in a peaceful and non- violent manner.
4. This order shall be in force till disposal of I.As.1 to 5 only.
Thereafter the above interim order is modified to the following effect by an order dated 31.1.2012:
"The defendants are restrained from threatening intimidating and harassing the officers and other officials and workers of the factory within the premises of factory compound and they also restrained from causing damages to the said premises and the property of the plaintiff. They are also restrained from interfering with or causing obstruction to the free ingress and egress to the factory, to officers, officials and 6 workers of factory and the movement of any vehicles in and out of the factory and the movement of raw materials, finished products into or outside the factory premises pending disposal of the suit. However, the defendants are at liberty to hold a demonstration in a peaceful and non-violent manner at shed already put by them abutting the compound wall adjacent to the factory main gate, as there is no other place for them to do the same. The defendants are hereby restrained from using the gas cylinder for cooking in the said shed in view of the special features of the plaintiff factory till the disposal of the suit."
Thus it is clear that the Civil Court by the modified order dated 31.1.2012 removed the obstacle of holding demonstration within the radius of 50 meters from the suit schedule property. Against the said order, the petitioner herein has approached this Court by filing MFA No.1642/2012. In the said MFA, the interim order is granted on 16.2.2012, which reads thus: 7
"Issue notice to the respondent.
Issue interim order restraining the defendant from holding any demonstration within the radius of 50 meters from the factory premises.
Post this matter after service of notice."
4. The above interim order is operating till now. These writ petitions are filed for the aforementioned reliefs on the ground that despite the interim order granted by this Court, the members of the 6th respondent - Union are again holding demonstration within the factory premises and are resorting to violent illegal activities like dharna, picketing etc., According to the petitioner, the members of the 6th respondent - Union have started cooking using gas stoves within the factory premises. They are also taking bath within the factory premises.
8
5. Petitioner is a biscuit manufacturing company. It has to maintain hygiene at the greatest level. Otherwise public or purchaser of biscuits will suffer. Naturally the conditions of licence in favour of the petitioner would mandate that the petitioner should keep the premises in clean and hygienic condition. Therefore it is incumbent on the members of the 6th respondent - Union to obey the interim order dated 16.2.2012 granted by this Court in MFA No.1642/2012 and that they should not take law into their hands.
If the members of Respondent No.6 - Union have violated the interim order granted by this Court in MFA No.1642/2012, it is also open for the petitioner to file an application under Order-39 Rule-2A of CPC for initiating the appropriate action.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the interim order is operating as on this date. If it is so, the members 9 of the 6th respondent - Union shall obey the interim order dated 16.2.2012 passed by this Court in MFA No.1642/2012 in letter and spirit. As mentioned supra, Sri Subba Rao, learned senior advocate for Respondent No.6 - Union submits that the members of the 6th respondent Union will abide by the interim order dated 16th February 2012 passed by this Court in MFA No.1642/2012.
If there is any violation of the interim order in future, it is open for the petitioner to take such action as is open to him in law. It is needless to observe that the petitioner may take Police help also in order to see that the order of this Court is strictly implemented.
With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-