M/S Paithal Hotels And ... vs The Sub Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 11303 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

    THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                      WP(C).No.27473 OF 2020(H)


PETITIONER:

               M/S PAITHAL HOTELS AND RESORTS(THE HOTEL ELEGANCE)
               KARUVANCHAL P.O., THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
               JOY JOSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS,
               S/O.LATE V.V.JOSEPH.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
               SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               ALAKKODU POLICE STATION, ALAKKODU P.O.,
               KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 571.

      2        THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               ALAKKODU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 571.

      3        THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
               THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670 141.

      4        THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (D.S.P.)
               KANNUR - 670 001.

      5        THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW AND ORDER)
               POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

      6        STATE OF KERALA
               REP. SECRETARY (HOME AFFAIRS), GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

      7        SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU)
               AREA COMMITTEE, ALAKKODU, KANNUR- 670 571,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

      8        THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER
               KANNUR - 670 001.

               R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN
               R7 BY ADV. SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI
 WP(C).No.27473 OF 2020(H)          2

             R7   BY   ADV.   SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY
             R7   BY   ADV.   SRI.VISAKH ANTONY
             R7   BY   ADV.   SRI.ABEL ANTONY
             R7   BY   ADV.   SRI.CHRISTINE MATHEW

             SRI PP THAJUDEEN, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.27473 OF 2020(H)            3




                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner firm is running a bar hotel by name 'Hotel Elegance' at

Karuvanchal, Kannur. The hotel has obtained Four star Classification and

was holding an FL-3 licence till 1.4.2015. The licence was renewed on

30.5.2020 and was valid till 31.3.2021.

2. According to the petitioner, due to the restrictions and

consequent lockdown imposed by the Government to arrest the COVID-19

pandemic, the hotel business was adversely affected. While the petitioner

was running the business by employing 42 workers earlier, after the lifting of

the lockdown, due to lack of footfall, they required only 8 workers to run the

business. When this fact was brought to the notice of the workers and the

Union, they demanded employment of all workers. The hotel had to be

closed down from 2.7.2020. The matter was taken up before the Labour

Officer and conciliation proceedings were held. Since the parties were not in

a position to reach a settlement, the petitioner decided to sell the hotel after

terminating the workers. Individual cheques were issued towards one month

wages, closure compensation, gratuity and salary. According to the

petitioner, they have paid over Rs.30 lakhs towards licence fee and since

they are unable to open the establishment, huge loss is being suffered. In

order to enable the petitioner to recommence the business and to afford

protection, Ext.P4 representation was submitted before the respondents 1

and 2. Their grievance is that no protection was granted to enable the

petitioner to open the hotel and commence business. It is in the afore

circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking directions to respondent

Nos.1 to 6 to afford adequate protection to the firm, willing workers and

employees for the smooth running of the hotel and also to ensure that the

free ingress and egress of vehicles into the establishment is not obstructed.

3. The 7th respondent is the Secretary of the Shops and

Establishment Employees Union (CITU) and in the counter affidavit filed by

him, it is contended that the assertion in the writ petition that the 7th

respondent and their union members had threatened the petitioner and had

managed to close down the hotel from 2.7.2020 is incorrect. It is contended

that when the petitioner engaged in unfair trade practices, a complaint was

lodged before the 8th respondent. The management did not take part in the

conciliation proceedings. Though cheques were issued by the petitioner,

none of the workers have accepted the same. Instead of employing the

permanent workers, the petitioner is employing a new set of employees.

The permanent employees submitted Ext.R7(b) letter on 22.12.2020

expressing their willingness to work in the hotel but the said letter was

ignored by the petitioner. After the restrictions were removed, the hotel has

been functioning properly and there is no justification on the part of the

petitioner not to provide employment to the workers.

4. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting

the contentions in the counter.

5. By order dated 11.12.2020, this Court had directed the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 to afford protection for the smooth functioning of

the hotel run by the petitioner and ensure that no obstruction was caused to

the free ingress and egress into the hotel by the petitioner, their willing

employees, vehicles and customers.

6. Sri. K.S. Bharathan, the learned counsel appearing for the 7th

respondent, submits that the Union or the workers have no intention to

cause any physical obstruction to the workers or to interfere with the

running of the hotel. He contends that though the dispute was initially

pending before the District Labour officer as no conciliation could be

reached, the matter has been referred to the Regional Labour Commissioner.

It is submitted that they shall pursue their legal remedies and shall not take

law into their own hands.

7. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in tune with the

directions issued by this Court, the official respondents have ensured that

law and order prevails in the area.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced. It appears that

conciliation proceedings are now pending before the Regional Labour

Commissioner. The 7th respondent has undertaken before this Court that

they shall pursue their legal remedies and shall not commit any act which

may result in any breach of law and order. In spite of the above undertaking,

if any obstruction is caused to the peaceful running of the hotel by the 7th

respondent or the workers, the petitioner may approach the 2nd respondent

and lodge a complaint. The 2nd respondent shall consider the allegations

and if the same is found genuine, appropriate action shall be taken.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE NS

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FL-3 LICENSE RENEWAL CERTIFICATE DATED 30/05/2020 NO.FL3KNR17/2020-21.

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16/10/2020 SENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT NO.1563/2020.

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE TERMINATION LETTER DATED 20/10/2020 ALONG WITH CHEQUE SENT TO ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES, SRI.THOMAS K.J.

 EXHIBIT P4           PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED
                      04/12/2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENTS
                      1 AND 2 WITH COPIES TO RESPONDENTS 3 TO
                      6 AND 8.

 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

 EXHIBIT R7(a)        TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
                      03.07.2020 SUBMITTED TO 8TH RESPONDENT.

 EXHIBIT R7(b)        TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.12.2020
                      SUBMITTED TO THE PETITIONER.


                                   //TRUE COPY//

                                   P.A TO JUDGE