Kerala High Court
Bharat Serum Vaccines Limited vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.29084 OF 2020(I)
PETITIONER/S:
1 BHARAT SERUM VACCINES LIMITED,
3RD FLOOR, LIBERTY TOWER, PLOT NO K-10, BEHIND
RELIABLE PLAZA, KALWA INDUSTRIEAL ESTATE, AIROLI,
NAV MUMBAI-400 708, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
(HUMAN RESOURCES), SRI AKHILESH MISHRA.
2 SREEJITH M,
AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, REGIONAL BUSINESS MANAGER
(SERAVACC), ROOM NO.1. NADUVILAPARAMBIL APARTMENT,
NR. MANORAMA JN., S.A ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 016.
3 K.N. RAJESH,
AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANAN, REGIONAL BUSINESS MANAGER, (WOMEN'S
HEALTH), DAVAZHIATH HOUSE, CHERANALLORE P.O.,
NEAR BHAGAWATI TEMPLE, ERNAKULAM-682 034.
4 SINEESH A.C.,
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O CHIDAMBARAN M.V., TERRITORY BUSINESS MANAGE,
(SERAVACC) ANANDA BHAVANAM, KURUPPANKULANGARA P.O.,
CHERTHALA, ALLEPPY-688 551.
5 J. SAKTHIDASAN,
AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O JAGANATHAN T, REGIONAL BUSINSS MANAGER
(FEMINORA), NO.15/33, MUTHAIA COMPLEX, ROOM NO.17,
MELA AVANI MOOLAYEEDAI MADURAI, TAMIL NADU-625 001.
BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
WP(C).No.29084 OF 2020 2
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND STATE POLICE
CHIEF, (LAW AND ORDER )POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, POLICE GROUND, CV RAMAN
PILLAI ROAD, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
5 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KOLLAM CITY, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM-691 001.
6 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KOLLAM RURAL, KARBALA, KOLLAM-691 001.
7 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
PATHANAMTHITTA, THAZHEVETTIPRAM,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.
8 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
ALAPPUZHA, CCSB ROAD, MUKHAM PURAYIDOM, CIVIL
STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 012.
9 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA-PULIYANMALA ROAD, IDUKKI COLONY
POST, CHERUTHONI, IDUKKI-685 602.
10 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KOTTAYAM, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-KUMILY
ROAD, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002.
11 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KOCHI CITY, ABDUL KALAM MARG, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM-682 011.
12 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
ERNAKULAM RURAL, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, SH 16,
OPP. POWER HOUSE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 101.
13 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
THRISSUR CITY, RAMAVARMAPURAM ROAD, PALLIMOOLA,
MANNUMKAD, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR-680 631.
WP(C).No.29084 OF 2020 3
14 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
THRISSUR RURAL, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR-680 003.
15 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
PALAKKAD, PUDUPALLI THERUVU, NURANI,
PALAKKAD-678 001.
16 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
MALAPPURAM, FEROKH PALAKKAD HIGHWAY-(NH-213),
UP HILL, MALAPPURAM-676 504.
17 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KOZHIKODE CITY, PAVAMANI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 004.
18 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KOZHIKODE RURAL, VADAKARA, VADAKARA,
KOZHIKODE-673 104.
19 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
WAYANAD, OPP DOORADARSHAN RELAY CENTRE,
KALPATTA-673 122.
20 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KANNUR, TALAP, KANNUR, KERALA-670 002.
21 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KASARGODE, PARAKATA, VIDYANAGAR-ULIYATHADKA ROAD,
KUDLU, KASARAGOD-671 123.
22 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
(LAW AND ORDER AND TRAFFIC), REVENUE TOWER,
KOCHI-682 035.
23 KERALA MEDICAL AND SALES REPRESENTATIVES
ASSOCIATION (KMSRA),
(CITU), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BTR BHAVAN,
CEMETERY JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM-682 010.
24 ARUN KUMAR K.R,
AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O RADHAKRISHNAN K.A., KEY ACCOUNT MANAGER,
KALATHIPARAMBIL (H), MULAVUKAD (PO),
ERNAKULAM-682504.
WP(C).No.29084 OF 2020 4
25 SATHEESH PAI,
AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O J. RAMANANDA PAI, TERRITORY BUSINESS MANAGER,
SIVA PARAMBIL (H), SIVALAYAM ROAD, THAMMAM P.O,
ERNAKULAM -682 032.
26 VARGHESE POOKKADEN,
AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O P.K.JACOB POOKKADEN, TERRITORY BUSINESS
MANAGER, PODKATTU, KAMMANA POST, MANANTHAVADY,
WAYANAD-670 645.
SRI PP THAJUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.29084 OF 2020 5
JUDGMENT
Bharat Serum Vaccines Limited, the 1st petitioner herein is a Company
registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in
manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical and lifesaving products.
The petitioners 2 to 5 are the senior officers of the Company. Though their
Regional Office is situated at Ernakulam, the company has business interest
in all districts in the State of Kerala.
2. The petitioners state that in the month of October, 2020, on
account of administrative reasons as well as business exigencies, the
petitioners had to redeploy their Territory Branch Managers to other parts
of the country. The service conditions clearly state that the employees are
transferable, the transfer being an incidence of service. Though most of the
employees accepted the transfer and joined the respective Stations, the
respondents 24 to 26 refused to oblige. With the aid of the 23rd
respondent, the Association of Medical and Sales Representatives, the party
respondents caused obstruction to the managerial staff, Regional Business
Managers and Sales Representatives in carrying on their business. They
also approached the Labour Commissioner, Mumbai, raising their grievance.
3. The petitioners contend that on 23.11.2020, Sri.K.N.Rajesh, the
Regional Business Manager, was obstructed while he was discharging his
duty along with one Aneesh. Immediately Ext.P4 complaint was lodged
before the Station House Officer, Kasba police station. On 27.11.2020,
another Manager was obstructed while he was discharging his duty at the
Welcare Hospital. According to the petitioners, the party respondents as
well as the Union have raised an open threat that the petitioners will not be
permitted to carry on their business activities in the State unless their
demands are met with. In the said circumstances, the petitioners are
stated to have filed Ext.P5 complaint before the SHO, Maradu police station.
The petitioners state that similar incidents were reported at Thrissur, Calicut
and Parappanangadi and threats are being made that the entire business of
the petitioners will be brought to a standstill. In the afore circumstances,
the Deputy General Manager lodged a complaint before the senior police
officers. However, no action was taken. The petitioners also refer to Ext.P9
complaint lodged before the State Police Chief. According to the petitioners,
no assistance was rendered and the party respondents are having a field
day intimidating and threatening the employees of the 1st petitioner and
disrupting their business. It is in the afore circumstances that the
petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction to respondents 2 to 22
to afford sufficient protection to the petitioners, their
managerial/supervisory officers and field staff as to enable them to perform
their duties without being obstructed or prevented or threatened in any
manner by the respondents 23 to 26 or their men.
4. By an interim order dated 29.12.2020, this Court had passed an
order directing the police to ensure that no obstruction is created for the
ingress and egress of the managerial and supervisory staff of the petitioners
to enter their premises.
5. Though notice was served on respondents 23, 25 and 26, they
have failed to appear.
6. Sri.K.Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, submitted that it is the duty of the police to protect the life,
liberty and property of all individuals and they are bound to instil a sense of
security among people in general. He would point out that the police were
duty bound to take effective steps to ensure that law and order is
maintained and the 1st petitioner and its employees are permitted to carry
on their business without any threat or intimidation from the party
respondents. According to the learned counsel, though the party
respondents have every right to carry out demonstration or to strike, no
amount of violence can be resorted to in the pretext of a strike. The willing
workers as well as the management have the right to pursue their avocation
without any threat or intimidation from the striking workers.
7. Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that a complaint was lodged by the 2nd petitioner before the Station House
Officer, Maradu Police Station on 28.11.2020 alleging that one Aneesh
Varghese had threatened some of the Managerial Staff. On receipt of the
complaint, the aforesaid Aneesh was summoned by the Station House
Officer, Maradu Police Station and he was warned. The learned Government
Pleader submits that the petitioners have arrayed the District Police Chiefs
of almost all the Districts of the State as respondents in this writ petition. It
is submitted that no untoward incidents have been reported in the areas
within their jurisdiction. It is further stated that except for having an office
at Ernakulam, the 1st petitioner has no other establishments in other parts
of the State.
8. I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced. A
labour dispute has arisen between the respondents 24 to 26, who are the
employees of the 1st petitioner when they were transferred to a unit out of
the State. The petitioners have stated that the said employees have already
approached the Labour Commissioner to redress their grievance. There
cannot be any doubt that the workers have the right to resort to strike or
dharna to effectively bargain with the management and to ensure that
unfair labour practices are avoided. However, in the guise of a strike, the
union leaders as well as the striking workers cannot resort to strong arm
tactics and violence to intimidate and force the management to succumb to
their demands. Even if the demand is legitimate, if the management for
one reason or the other do not accede to their demand, the only option is
to resolve the dispute in a manner known to law. Under no circumstances
can the respondents resort to violence to further their cause. That would
infringe the rights of the petitioners to carry on their business. From the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
it appears that the Regional office of the petitioners is situated at SA Road,
Ernakulam. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that as and
when complaints have been received, swift action has been taken against
the party respondents and that the police shall continue to do so.
In that view of the matter, while making the interim order absolute,
this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to approach the
jurisdictional police station, if any threat or intimidatory tactics is adopted
by respondents 23 to 26. If any such complaint is received, the concerned
officer shall enquire the same and if it is found genuine, appropriate action
shall be taken against the concerned persons.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
sru
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER PROCEEDINGS
DATED 3.10.20 ISSUED TO 24TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER PROCEEDINGS
DATED 3.10.20 ISSUED TO 25TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER PROCEEDINGS
DATED 3.10.20 ISSUED TO 26TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
23.11.2020 FILED BY K.N.RAJESH TO
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM TOWN
NORTH POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
28.11.2020 FILED BY SHRI. SREEJITH M
BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MARAD
POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 2.12.2020
SHOWING COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 5TH
PETITIONER BEFORE THE THRISSUR TOWN WEST
POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 3.12.2020
SHOWING COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 5TH
PETITIONER BEFORE THE PARAPPANANGADI
POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM.
EXHIBIT P7 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 7.12.2020
SHOWING COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 5TH
PETITIONER BEFORE THE NADAKKAVU POLICE
STATION, CALICUT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
30.11.2020 FILED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL
MANAGER OF 1ST PETITIONERS BEFORE THE
22ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
30.11.2020 SENT BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL
MANAGER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
