Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Kerala High Court

Marico Limited vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2018

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Devan Ramachandran

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

                                &

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

  MONDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 16TH ASWINA, 1940

                     WP(C).No. 32666 of 2018



PETITIONER/S:


      1       MARICO LIMITED
              NIDA, MENONPARA ROAD, KANJIKODE 678621,
              PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY MR
              SREENIVASAN T, PLANT OPERATION MANAGER,
              KANJIKODE

      2       MR.SREENIVASAN T,
              PLANT OPERATION MANAGER, MARICO LIMITED, NIDA,
              MENONPARA ROAD, KANJIKODE-678621.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
              SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
              SMT.S.MAHITHA

RESPONDENT/S:
      1     STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY
            THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, HOME DEPARTMENT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

      2       THESUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
              PALAKKAD-678001.

      3       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
              WALAYAR, PALAKKAD-678624.

      4       PALAKKAD DISTRICT ENGINEERING AND
              INDUSTRIES MAZDOOR SANGHAM, BMS OFFICE,
              HARIKARA STREET, PALAKKAD -678001,REP.BY ITS
              SECRETARY.
 WP(C).No. 32666 of 2018

                                2

       5    MARICO EMPLOYEES UNION,
            MARICO LTD,NIDA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-
            678621,REP.BY SECRETARY.

       6    MARICO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (INTUC),
            KANJIKODE,PALAKKAD-678621,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

       7    MARICO WORKERS UNION(AITUC)
            KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-678621,REP.BY IS SECRETARY.

       8    REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
            CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

            BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.P. THAJUDEEN.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:



                          JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

' A company by name 'Marico Ltd., and its Plant Operation Manager have filed this writ petition seeking police protection against respondents 4 to , alleging that their members are likely to obstruct the functioning of the 1st petitioner's factory and that they are likely to impede the free ingress and egress of employees and their vehicles, as also the movement of materials and finished products to and from the factory premises.

3

The pleadings on record would show that the controversy has its genesis in certain labour issues and that the company had, in fact, engaged with them through discussions. We are told today that the 8 th respondent-Regional Joint Labour Commissioner has also been approached and that mediation talks are underway.

Shri Benny P. Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioners says that when such conciliation process is going on, it is not permissible for respondents 4 to 7 to take law into their own hands and in attempting to stop the functioning of the factory.

The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 7 says that his clients were constrained to issue a strike notice on account of the fact that the Management of the first petitioner/company has been unyielding to their legitimate demands. However, the learned counsel submits that his clients are not taking law into their hands, as alleged and that they will not cause any obstruction to the free ingress and egress of personnel, materials or vehicles to and from the factory.

4

Even though notice has been served on the party respondents, they have chosen not to appear in person or to be represented through counsel. We, therefore, take it that they have nothing to offer in answer to the averments in the writ petition.

The learned Sr.Government Pleader, appearing on instructions received from respondents 2 and 3, who are the concerned police officials in charge of the area where the first petitioner company is situated, submits that the issues between the parties are in the labour law realm and that the workers are now on strike-path on account of the petitioner-Management refusing to accept or accede to certain of their demands. The learned Sr.Government Pleader says that, as of now, there are no law and order issues in the area and he assures this Court that if any such issues arise in future, the police will intervene, as is warranted in law.

On a consideration of the afore submissions and taking specific note of the submissions made on behalf of respondents 4 and 7 that they will not cause any WP(C).No. 32666 of 2018 5 obstruction, we order this writ petition and direct the third respondent, who is the Station House Officer, Walayar, to take appropriate action as and when any complaint is made before him by the petitioners regarding obstruction to the ingress and egress of personnel, materials or their vehicles to and from the factory of the first petitioner company. If such a complaint is made, the police shall immediately take action on the same and ensure that all such obstructions are removed in terms of law.

Sd/-P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE PERIOD OF LAST LONG TERM SETTLEMENT DATED 09.3.2017 THE UNIONS SUBMITTED CHARTER OF DEMANDS.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STRIKE NOTICE DATED 24.9.2018.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGEMENT DATED 04.10.2018.

/TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE.

lk