Kerala High Court
Eicl Limited vs Commissioner Of Police on 19 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.21893 OF 2020(J)
PETITIONER:
EICL LIMITED
TC 91/34, VELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695021,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
(H.R. AND ADM), SYAM S.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)
SRI.T.C.KRISHNA
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY
SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014.
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL)
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT (RURAL),
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.
3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695101.
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, MANGALAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695024.
5 TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CLAY WORKERS UNION(CITU)
C/O. CITU DC OFFICE, REG.NO. 126/73,
CHIRAKKULAM ROAD, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
6 EICL MAZDOOR SANGHAM (BMS)
REG.NO.01-24-1998, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
WP(C).No.21893 OF 2020(J)
2
7 ENGLISH INDIAN CLAYS EMPLOYEES CONGRESS (INTUC-I)
GINSALAYAM, KUNNUKUZHY ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, - 695035,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
8 ENGLISH INDIAN CLAY FACTORY EMPLOYEES UNION
(AFFILIATED TO UTUC REG NO. 01 - 20 OF 2012)
VELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695021, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY.
R6-R7 BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
R1 TO R4 SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.21893 OF 2020(J)
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies
Act, engaged in mining and processing of high end kaolin, which
has manufacturing plants and mines at Veli and Thonnakkal in
Thiruvananthapuram District, has filed this writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of
mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate
and effective police protection for the smooth functioning of the
petitioner's factory at Thonnakkal, without let or interference at the
hands of respondents 5 to 8 or their supporters and sympathizers.
The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that respondents 5
to 8 have no right to cause any obstruction to the functioning of
the petitioner's factory at Thonnakkal and that, the failure on the
part of respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate and effective
protection for the functioning of the petitioner's factory at
Thonnakkal would amount to abdication of duties.
2. On 15.10.2020, when this writ petition came up for
admission this Court issued notice before admission to the
respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for
respondents 1 to 4 and urgent notice by speed post was ordered to
WP(C).No.21893 OF 2020(J)
respondents 5 to 8. Having regard to the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court granted an interim
order directing respondents 3 and 4 to maintain law and order and
to ensure that no obstruction is caused by respondents 5 to 8 to
the free ingress and egress of the staff, willing workmen and
officials of the ECIL Ltd., to enter into their factory at Thonnakkal.
3. Respondents 6 and 7 have filed their counter affidavit,
opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, raising various
labour issues.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned
counsel for respondents 6 and 7. Despite service of notice, none
appears for respondents 5 and 8.
5. 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
WP(C).No.21893 OF 2020(J)
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.
6. 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
WP(C).No.21893 OF 2020(J)
without authority. They must not use more force than the
occasion warrants."
7. 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].
8. 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
WP(C).No.21893 OF 2020(J)
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.
9. In the instant case, on 15.10.2020, this Court directed
respondents 3 and 4 to maintain law and order and to ensure that
no obstruction is caused by respondents 5 to 8 to the free ingress
and egress of the staff, willing workmen and officials of the ECIL
Ltd., to enter into their factory at Thonnakkal. During the course of
WP(C).No.21893 OF 2020(J)
arguments, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in view of the interim order of this Court, at present
there is no law and order issue.
10. The learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 would point
out that conciliation proceedings are now pending before the
concerned Labour Officer and there is no co-operation from the
side of the petitioner management.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the management will co-operate with the conciliation proceedings
now pending before the concerned Labour Officer.
12. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions from
the 4th respondent Station House Officer, would submit that after
the interim order of this Court, there is no law and order issues.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioner management and respondents 5 to 8
unions shall co-operate with the conciliation
proceedings, which is now pending before the
concerned Labour Officer.
(ii) The 4th respondent shall take necessary steps to ensure
WP(C).No.21893 OF 2020(J)
that there is no threat to law and order in the locality,
at the instance of employees of respondents 5 to 8
unions.
(iii) In case there is any threat to law and order in the
locality, at instance of the employees of respondents 5
to 8 unions, the petitioner shall move the 4 th
respondent Station House Officer with a request for
Police protection.
(iv) In case any such request for Police protection is made
by the petitioner, the 4th respondent shall take
necessary action on that request, without any delay,
taking note of the statutory provisions referred to
hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the
decisions referred to supra.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
JV JUDGE
WP(C).No.21893 OF 2020(J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS)NO.
60/2020/GAD DATED 4.4.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED
14.07.2020 IN WP(C) NO. 14188/2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10.08.2020
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 09.09.2020
ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 7.10.2020
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 09.10.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
4TH RESPONDENT STATION HOUSE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
12.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
12.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
12.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
HELD ON 11.7.2018
EXHIBIT R6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
HELD ON 10.12.2018
EXHIBIT R6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
HELD ON 22.5.2019
WP(C).No.21893 OF 2020(J)
EXHIBIT R6(D) TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT ENTERED INTO
BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND THE UNIONS
DATED 28.12.2019
EXHIBIT R6(E) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT
EXHIBIT R6(F) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
BOARDS REPORT
EXHIBIT R6(G) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
ANNUAL REPORT 2019-2020
