Kerala High Court
Kilkotagiri And Thirumbadi ... vs District Police Chief(The ... on 24 September, 2020
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 2ND ASWINA, 1942
W.P.(C)No.12264 OF 2020(G)
PETITIONER/S:
KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER,
THIRUMBADI ESTATE, MUKKAM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673 602
BY ADV. SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF(THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE),
KOZHIKODE RURAL,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 104
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MUKKAM POLICE STATION,
MUKKOM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673 602
3 INLC-NORTH KERALA ESTATE LABOUR CONGRESS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
JAWAHAR BUILDINGS ,
K.P.KESAVA MENON ROAD,
KOZHIKODE-673 022
4 INLC-NORTH KERALA ESTATE LABOUR CONGRESS,
ESTATE COMMITTEE,
MUKKAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 602,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ,K.P.RAJESH,
S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, KUNIYAPERAMBATH HOUSE,
THONDIMMAL, THIVAMBADY P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 603
5 KOZHIKODE TALUK ESTATE WORKERS UNION (CITU)
THIRUVAMBADY ESTATE DIVISION COMMITTEE,
MUKKAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 602,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAFEEK,
S/O. ADBU, RESIDING AT KALAYATHU HOUSE,
KARASSERY,MUKKAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 602
W.P.(C) No.12264 of 2020(G)
2
6 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ESTATE LABOUR CONGRESS (INTUC)
THIRUVAMBADI ESTATE DIVISION COMMITTEE,
MUKKAM P.O., KOZHIKODE -673 602,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, T.P.JABBAR,
THORAYAN PILAKKAL, KUMARANELLOOR P.O.,
MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE-673 602
7 KOZHIKODE JILLA ESTATE MAZDOOR SANGHAM (BMS)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
BMS OFFICE,
KALLAYI ROAD,
KOZHIKODE-673 002
8 KOZHIKODE JILLA STATE MAZDOOR SANGHAM (BMS)
THIRUVAMBADI ESTATE COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.SUKUMARAN,
S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, MELEPILAKKUMCHALIL HOUSE,
NEELESWARAM, KOZHIKODE,PIN-673 582
9 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
10 ADDL.R10.
THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE.
IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 23-07-2020.
R3-R8 BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI P.P.THAJUDHEEN - SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.12264 of 2020(G)
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of producing natural rubber latex, which owns rubber plantation as well as factory for processing natural rubber latex at Mukkam in Kozhikode District. The petitioner company, which is engaging around 400 permanent employees and 175 casual workers, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to afford and render necessary Police protection against the illegal obstructions caused by respondents 3 to 8 trade unions and their men, from operating and maintaining the plantation, factories and business of the company and from causing any hindrance to the procurement and transportation of raw materials and dispatching the processed goods and other ancillary and incidental activities connected thereto and further directing respondents 1 and 2 to take all legal steps necessary to ensure the routine business activities in the business premises of the company, by engaging workers who are willing to work and to do whatever is required to maintain law and order in the business premises, for protecting the properties and lives of the employees of the petitioner company.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, on account W.P.(C) No.12264 of 2020(G) 4 of certain labour issues with respondents 3 to 8 trade unions and workers who are members of those trade unions, the petitioner company submitted Ext.P5 representation before the District Labour Officer, Kozhikode for holding conciliation talk. Though conciliation talk was held on 10.06.2020, the office bearers of respondents 3 to 8 trade unions and workers did not yield to any amicable settlement. After the failure of conciliation talk, the workers become more aggressive and they started obstructing free ingress and egress of men and materials, consequent to which large quantities of processed rubber latex is lying as dead stock in the factory premises. The striking workers threatened the willing workers and substitutes with dire consequences. Even the administrative staff members of the petitioner company are threatened with dire consequences and their lives are in danger. The petitioner company submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 11.06.2020 before the 1 st respondent District Police Chief seeking police protection and thereafter moved this writ petition before this Court, on 18.06.2020.
3. On 22.06.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1, 2 and 9. W.P.(C) No.12264 of 2020(G) 5 The petitioner was directed to take out notice to respondents 3 to
8. While ordering the writ petition to be listed on 23.07.2020 for the counter affidavit of the respondents, this Court granted an interim order as prayed for, i.e., an order directing respondents 1 and 2 to afford necessary protection to the petitioner company, to carry out its routine business activities, with the workers willing to work and to maintain law and order in its business premises by ensuring the life and liberty of its employees, till that date. The learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to communicate the gist of the order dated 22.06.2020 to respondents 1, 2 and 9 for prompt action.
4. On 22.07.2020, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the District Labour Officer, Kozhikode was suo motu impleaded as additional 10th respondent. It was submitted by the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 8 trade unions that the workers are deprived of their legitimate dues, i.e., their salary and other benefits. This Court by the order dated 23.07.2020 directed the additional 10th respondent District Labour Officer to initiate conciliation to resolve the dispute at the earliest, and extended the interim order granted on 22.06.2020, until further orders, and the learned Government Pleader was directed to intimate that order to W.P.(C) No.12264 of 2020(G) 6 the additional 10th respondent.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2, 9 and additional 10th respondent; and also the learned counsel for respondents 3 to
8.
6. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation, powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter II of the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of the Act deals with general duties of Police. As per Section 3, the Police, as a service functioning category among the people as part of the administrative system shall, subject to the Constitution of India and the laws enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and protection of human rights. Section 4 of the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and W.P.(C) No.12264 of 2020(G) 7 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.
7. 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 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."
8. 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].
W.P.(C) No.12264 of 2020(G)8
9. In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha [(1980) 2 SCC 593] the Apex Court held that, the right to unionise, the right to strike as part of collective bargaining and subject to the legality and humanity of the situation, the right of the weaker group viz. labour, to pressure the stronger party viz. capital, to negotiate and render justice, are processes recognised by industrial jurisprudence and supported by Social Justice. While society itself, in its basic needs of existence, may not be held to ransom in the name of the right to bargain and strikers must obey civilised norms in the battle and not be vulgar or violent hoodlums industry, represented by intransigent Managements, may well be made to reel into reason by the strike weapon and cannot then sequeal or wail and complain of loss of profits or other ill-effects but must negotiate or get a reference made. The broad basis is that workers are weaker although they are the producers and their struggle to better their lot has the sanction of the rule of law. Unions and strikers are no more conspiracies than professions and political parties, are, 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 W.P.(C) No.12264 of 2020(G) 9 603 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.
10. In Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998 (2) KLT 732], in the context of the Section 21 of of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 and Rule 15 of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, which deals with settlement of disputes, a Full Bench of this Court held that, the Act and the Rules provide for a machinery for settlement of disputes between the employer and the worker. In the normal course, the dispute between the employer and the headload workers employed by him are to be settled in accordance with the machinery thus provided under the Statute, just like in the case of any other labour dispute being settled in accordance with the provisions contained under the relevant Statutes. But the fact that there is a machinery provided under the Act to settle the disputes between the parties cannot stand in the way of the employer seeking police protection when there is a law and order problem. When such an employer approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India W.P.(C) No.12264 of 2020(G) 10 seeking protection of person and property of the employer as well as willing workers, this Court will be justified in granting direction to the Police to give protection, if circumstances so warrant. One such consideration can be irreparable injury that would be suffered by the employer and/or the willing workers. There may be other circumstances also which would justify grant of such direction in the facts of a particular case.
11. The members of respondents 3 to 8 trade unions can certainly resort to strike as one of the modes of recognised form of expression. The right of strike as part of collective bargaining is recognised in law only so long as it is peaceful. The striking workers must obey civilised norms in the battle and they cannot be permitted to take law into their own hands. They should desist from using vulgar and intimidating language. They have no legal right to obstruct ingress and egress of the officers, staff, customers and also the willing workers of the petitioner company or to cause any damage to its property. When there are acts of violence by the striking workers, the Management is entitled to adequate and effective Police protection. However, an order for Police protection cannot be claimed to frustrate and thwart the attempt of the workers and their trade unions to raise an industrial dispute or the W.P.(C) No.12264 of 2020(G) 11 competent authority in holding conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act for amicable settlement of that dispute.
12. The learned counsel for respondents 3 to 8 trade unions would submit that, the workers of the petitioner company, who are members of respondents 3 to 8 trade unions, have no intention to cause any obstruction to the smooth functioning of the company or to take law into their own hands take law into their hands. The workers are now being paid their wages. Their claim for arrears of wages, payment of bonus and also their demand for basic amenities are now pending conciliation before the additional 10 th respondent District Labour Officer.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner company would submit that the Management has no intention to deny the legal rights or basic amenities of the workers and that, the Management is prepared to cooperate with conciliation proceedings before the additional 10th respondent District Labour Officer.
14. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that, in terms of the interim order dated 22.06.2020, the 2 nd respondent Station House Officer rendered necessary protection to the petitioner company, to carry out its routine business activities, W.P.(C) No.12264 of 2020(G) 12 with the workers willing to work and to maintain law and order in its business premises.
15. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the additional 10th respondent District Labour Officer to proceed with the conciliation proceedings, in accordance with law, and by directing the 2nd respondent Station House Officer to maintain law and order in the business premises of the petitioner company, in case of any threat or obstruction by respondents 3 to 8 trade unions and its members.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE MIN W.P.(C) No.12264 of 2020(G) 13 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.290/2020/ID TO THE EFFECT THAT INDUSTRIES PRODUCING RUBBER LATAX/GLOVES ETC.ARE TO BE EXEMPTED FROM LOCKDOWN DATED 06.04.2020 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, EXEMPTING FROM LOCKDOWN DATED 07.04.2020 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE D.O.LETTER FROM THE MINISTRY OF FERTILIZES AND CHEMICAL TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA DATED 23.03.2020 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE WORKERS EXPLAINING THE SITUATION,DATED 11.04.2020 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, DATED 11.06.2020 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE STRIKING WORKERS DATED 10.06.2020 EXHIBIT P7 REPRESENTATION TO THE RESPONDENT NOS 1 AND 2 SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION, DATED 11.06.2020