Kerala High Court
Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd vs Kerala Medical And Sales ...
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 36795 of 2016 (Y)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD.
VILE PARLE (E), MUMBAI-400 057,
MAHARASHTRA, REPRESENTED BY THEIR AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
VARGHESE MATHEW SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
BY ADVS.SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL
SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR
SRI.ARUN SAMUEL
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. KERALA MEDICAL AND SALES REPRESENTATIVES ASSOCIATION
(CITU), AFFILIATED TO FMRAI,
REGD UNDER INDIAN TRADE UNION ACT;
REG NO.170/67, B.T.R. BHAVAN,
CEMETERY JUNCTION, KOCHI-682018
REPRESENTED BY MOHAN C NAIR,
GENERAL SECRETARY
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KOZHIKODE - 676 001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL)
THRISSUR - 680 001.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
KOLLAM - 691 001.
5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
*ADDL.R6 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
*ADDL.R7 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KOZHIKODE CITY,
KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
*(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NOS.6 & 7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
07.12.2016 IN I.A.NO.20039/16)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY(ERNAKULAM)
R2 TO ADDL.R7 BY ADV.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 36795 of 2016 (Y)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC 13509/2016 DATED
5/4/2016
P2 COPY OF LETTER DATED 23/3/2016
P3 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 12/7/2007
P4&P4(a) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE KOZHIKODE
KASBA POLICE STATION DATED 1/4/2016 AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT.
P5 & P5(a) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE GURUVAYOOR POLICE
STATION DATED 19/5/2016 AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT
P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26/7/2016 FILD BEFORE THE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM
P7 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMNT RECEIPT DATED 2/6/2016 FROM
KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
AREA MANAGER
P8 & P8(a) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19/8/2016 FILED BEFORE
THE PEROORKADA POLICE STATION ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
RECEIPT
P9&P9(a) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8/11/2016 FILED BEFORE
THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM POLICE STATION AND ACKNOLEDGEMENT RECEIPT.
P10 COPY OF COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY ONE OF THE EMPLOYEE OF
the PETITIONER COMPANY TO SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 15.11.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE.
jg-17/12
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ.
....................................................................
WP(C) No.36795 of 2016
....................................................................
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2016.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
Petitioner is a manufacturer of different articles of food for human consumption. They appointed different C&F agents. In the course of their activity, they found threat to the life of some of the employees and officers on account of certain conflict of opinion between a trade union on the one hand and C&F agent as also the petitioner-management on the other hand. They, therefore, seek directions for police protection. On notice being issued, the first respondent trade union has appeared. However, it has not objected to the writ petition. No counter affidavit has been filed. Additional official respondents have been brought on record.
Considering the material pleadings and the documentary evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader, we see that what is WPC36795/16 -2- required is that any due complaint of threat to the property of the petitioner or any complaint regarding creation of any obstruction in the due functioning of the offices of the petitioner through out the State, shall be attended to by the jurisdictional police, in accordance with law, if necessary, by providing requisite police protection, however on terms as to expenses by the petitioner. As regards protection to the life of the officers and staff of the petitioner is concerned, the jurisdictional police will do the needful as is called for in any particular given situation, where there is threat to life as may be perceived by the jurisdictional police, even on a complaint by the person concerned. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE) jg-8/12