Kerala High Court
Berger Paints India Limited vs Ernakulam Shops And Commercial ... on 22 February, 2013
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan, K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
MONDAY,THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/8TH ASWINA, 1935
WP(C).No. 21823 of 2013 (C)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED,
BUILDING NO.XVI/222 F, SURVEY NO.777/9 TO 12,
THRIKKAKARA NORTH, MUNDANPALAM, PUKKATTUPADY ROAD,
VADACODE P.O., KOCHI - 682 021,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL SALES MANAGER N.I.JOSEPH.
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN.
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. ERNAKULAM SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU),
REG. NO.07/16/89, MARUTHI VILAS, CANNON SHED ROAD,
KOCHI- 682 011,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, THRIKKAKARA - 682 021.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY(ERNAKULAM),
R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SOJAN JAMES.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 30-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
W.P.(C).NO.21823/2013-C:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 22/2/2013 ISSUED BY THE
KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER
AND M/S.ADECCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18/6/2012 FROM THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO M/S.ADECCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 31/8/2013 FROM THE PETITIONER TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL DATED 1/9/2013 SENT BY THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
==================
W.P.(C). No. 21823 of 2013
==================
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2013
J U D G M E N T
S.Siri Jagan, J.:
The petitioner is a company having a sales depot in Kalamassery Municipality. The workers represented by the 1st respondent union have raised certain disputes regarding hike in wages. According to the petitioner, the dispute is not between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, but between a company, who is providing man power to the petitioner and the employees provided by them to the petitioner, who are represented by the 1st respondent. In the name of the dispute, the 1st respondent union, along with some other workers, are obstructing the ingress and egress of the petitioner's managerial personnel, staff, clients and vehicles and they are also threatening a strike. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the 2nd respondent to grant adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner, its management personnel, staff workmen and clients for the smooth running of its office cum depot at Door w.p.c.21823/13 - : 2 :-
No.XVI/222 F of Kalamassery Municipality without any obstruction or interference at the hands of the 1st respondent, its supporters and sympathizers,
b) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the 2nd respondent to shift the striking workers represented by the 1st respondent to a safe distance outside the petitioner's compound at Door No.XVI/222 F of Kalamassery Municipality."
2. When the matter came up on 9.9.2013, this Court passed the following interim order:
"The General Secretary of the first respondent union appears in person and undertakes that they do not intend to cause any obstruction to the staff, workers, clients or vehicles of the petitioner. This submission is recorded. It is directed that in the event any obstruction is caused contrary to the above undertaking, police protection as prayed for will be granted. Post on 11.9.13. Counter affidavit, if any, in the meantime.
3. Today the 1st respondent appears through counsel and submits that they have never interfered with the functioning of the establishment and all what they have done is to raise an industrial dispute before the concerned Labour Officer. They submit that on the strength of the interim order they have obtained, the petitioner is not participating in the conciliation proceedings initiated by the Labour Officer on the complaint filed by the 1st respondent raising their demands.
4. We have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. The existence of an industrial dispute is not a ground for obstructing the functioning of the establishment itself, which w.p.c.21823/13 - : 3 :-
will be counter productive insofar as the workers themselves will lose their wages. Therefore, we are of opinion that the 1st respondent cannot obstruct the functioning of the establishment. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that they are not in anyway causing any obstruction whatsoever, to the functioning of the establishment. They only want the petitioner also to participate in the conciliation proceedings initiated by the concerned Labour Officer. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order. However, the benefit of the interim order and this judgment would be available to the petitioner only if the petitioner participates in the conciliation proceedings initiated by the concerned Labour Officer. If the petitioner fails to attend any meeting of the conciliation officer, the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.
Sd/-
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/-
sdk+ K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. To Judge.