Kerala High Court
Ajith C.K vs The District Police Chief on 16 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L)
PETITIONER:
AJITH C.K.
AGED 23 YEARS,
S/O. SHIVADASAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT CHETTIYAM, THODUKA,
RAROTH, THAMARASSERY,
KOZHIKODE 673 573
BY ADVS.
SRI.AMEER.K.M.
SHRI.RAHMATHULLAH.M
SHRI.ADEEB KAMAL P.N.
SMT.AISWARYA RAVIKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 001
2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KONGAD POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 001
3 THE CHAIRMAN,
KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKER WELFARE BOARD,
1ST FLOOR M A COMPLEX OPPOSITE TO KSEB,
T.B ROAD, PALAKKAD 678 014
4 CITU (HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION)
KERALASSERY UNIT, KERALASSERY (PO),
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 641
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY SRI SAJIVAN
WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L) 2
5 INTUC (HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION)
KERALASSERY UNNI, KEERALASSERY (PO),
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 641
INTUC OFFICE REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT
SRI MURALI
R1 BY SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R3 BY ADV. SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
R5 BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
R5 BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.2913 OF 2021(L)
-3-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is engaged in cutting and selling of
trees, had entered into Ext.P1 agreement dated 7.1.2021, with
one K.C.Joseph and his son K.M.Jose for cutting and removing
1600 rubber trees from the properties referred to in that
agreement situated in Keralassery Village, which is valid till
7.3.2021. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding respondents 1 and 2 to render necessary and
adequate police protection to undertake the work of cutting and
transporting the trees without any hindrance and physical
obstruction from respondents 4 and 5 and their men.
2. In the writ petition, it is alleged that though the area
in question is not covered by the scheme under the provisions of
the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and
Welfare) Scheme, 1983, the headload workers of respondents 4
and 5 unions are causing obstruction. Pointing out the said fact,
the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint dated 28.1.2021
before the 1st respondent District Police Chief, followed by Ext.P4
complaint dated 27.1.2021 before the 2 nd respondent Circle
Inspector of Police, Kongad Police Station and thereafter,
moved this writ petition before this Court, seeking the
aforesaid relief.
3. On 4.2.2021 when this writ petition came up for
admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on
admission for respondents 1 and 2. The learned Standing
Counsel took notice on admission for the 3 rd respondent.
Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered
to respondents 4 and 5, returnable by 10.2.2021. The learned
Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the
area in question is not a scheme covered area. Having
considered the averments in the writ petition and also the
submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this
Court granted an interim order on 4.2.2020 directing the 2 nd
respondent Circle Inspector of Police to take necessary steps
to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the
locality, at the instance of respondents 4 and 5 or their
supporters.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5 th
respondent, opposing the relief sought for in this writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and
2, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent and
also the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. Despite service
of notice, none appears for the 4th respondent.
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 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].
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 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
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. During the course of argument, the learned counsel
for the petitioner would submit that the 2 nd respondent has
taken into custody the machineries used by the workers
engaged by the petitioner for cutting and removing the trees
covered by Ext.P1 agreement. Since the area is not a scheme
covered area, the 2nd respondent shall be instructed
appropriately to release those equipments.
12. From the pleadings and materials on record and
also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both
sides, this Court finds that the area in question is not a
scheme covered area. If that be so, the headload workers,
who are the members of respondents 4 and 5 unions have no
legal right to claim the loading and unloading work undertaken
by the petitioner, in connection with execution of Ext.P1
agreement.
13. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed
of with the following directions:
i) The 2nd respondent Circle Inspector of Police shall
take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat
to law and order in the locality, in connection with the
cutting and removing of trees, pursuant to Ext.P1
agreement, at the instance of the headload workers
under respondents 4 and 5 unions.
ii) In case there is any obstruction to the cutting
and removal of trees, pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement,
it is for the petitioner to submit a proper request
before the 2nd respondent seeking police protection, in
which event, the 2nd respondent shall render necessary
police protection to the petitioner and his workers,
taking note of the statutory provisions referred to
hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the
decisions referred to supra.
iii) In case the 2nd respondent has taken into custody
the machineries used by the workers engaged by the
petitioner for cutting and removing the trees covered
by Ext.P1 agreement, he shall return the same, if
there are no other legal impediments.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
JUDGE
ab
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE OPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
07-01-2021
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED ON 28-01-2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
RECEIPT DATED 29-01-2021
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 27-01-2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOLEDGEMENT OF
RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATION 29-01-2021
RESONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXT.R5(A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE
DEPONENT
EXT.R5(B) COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.15.1.2021.
EXT.R5(C) COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
ASST.LABOUR OFFICER (FIRST CIRCLE), .
PALAKKAD.
