Kerala High Court

Jameela Beevi vs District Superintendent Of ... on 13 January, 2021

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                    WP(C).No.27828 OF 2020(C)


PETITIONER:

               JAMEELA BEEVI
               AGED 40 YEARS
               W/O. SAINULABDEEN, PROPRIETOR, SS AGENCIES,
               KARALIKONAM, ELAMADU VILLAGE, ARKKANNOOR P.O.,
               KOLLAM.

               BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL)
               KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506.

      2        STATION HOUSE OFFICER
               CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691 534.

      3        THE CHAIRMAN
               KERALA STATE HEAD LOAD WORKERS FUND BOARD,
               KOLLAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, USHAS BUILDING, NEAR
               STONE BRIDGE, CHAMAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001.

      4        NAGOORKHANI
               S/O. UTHUMAN KANNU RAWTHER, (CONVENER INTUC),
               PEZHU VEEDU, KARALIKONAM, ARKKANNOOR PO,
               KOLLAM-691 533.

               R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.SIJU
               SMT A.C.VIDHYA - GOVERNMENT PLEADER

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.27828 of 2020

                                    2

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is conducting cement dealership,

namely, 'SS Agencies', covered by Ext.P1 GST registration and

Ext.P2 licence issued by Elamadu Grama Panchayat, has filed this

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to

afford adequate and effective police protection to the functioning

of the petitioner's firm 'SS Agencies', Karalikonam, without being

obstructed in any manner either by the 4 th respondent or any

other persons engineered by him. The petitioner has also sought

for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to

afford adequate and effective police protection to the life of the

workers and the men attached to the petitioner's firm, without

being obstructed in any manner either by the 4 th respondent or

any other persons engineered by him; and a writ of mandamus

commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take action pursuant to

Exts.P3 and P5 petitions forthwith. The grievance of the petitioner

is against the obstruction caused by the headload workers

headed by the 4th respondent.

2. On 14.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for WP(C)No.27828 of 2020

admission, this Court issued notice before admission to the

respondents. The learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 3 rd

respondent. The learned Government Pleader took notice for

respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to

the 4th respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd

respondent submitted that the concern of the petitioner is not

situated in an area where the functional operation of the scheme

has been extended. Having regard to the submissions advanced,

this Court granted an interim order directing respondents 1 to 3

to afford effective and adequate police protection to the life of the

petitioner and the workers attached to the petitioner's firm,

without being obstructed in any fashion either by the 4 th

respondent or any other persons engineered by him, for a period

of three weeks. The said interim order, which was extended on

04.01.2021, is still in force.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2,

the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Headload

Workers Fund Board, representing the 3rd respondent. Despite

service of notice, none appears for the 4th respondent. WP(C)No.27828 of 2020

4. 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 WP(C)No.27828 of 2020

with the law.

5. 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."

6. 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) WP(C)No.27828 of 2020

15 SCC 470].

7. 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 WP(C)No.27828 of 2020

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.

8. 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 WP(C)No.27828 of 2020

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.

9. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel

for the petitioner would point out that, as submitted by the

learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent on 14.12.2020,

the petitioner's concern is situated in an area, which is not

covered by the functional operation of the Scheme under the

Welfare) Scheme, 1983. In such circumstances, the headload

workers under the 4th respondent cannot insist that they should

be engaged in loading and unloading activities in the

establishment.

10. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent

would submit that, as pointed out on 14.12.2020, the area in

question is not a scheme covered area.

11. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions from

the 2nd respondent Station House Officer, would submit that, on

the basis of the interim order granted by this Court, the 2 nd

respondent rendered necessary police protection to the petitioner

and at present there is no law and order problem. The Assistant

Labour Officer, Chadayamangalam has already initiated

conciliation proceedings, which is in progress.

12. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of

with the following directions;

(i) In case there is any obstruction to the loading

and unloading activities in the petitioner's

establishment, at the instance of the 4th respondent or WP(C)No.27828 of 2020

the workers of his Union, the petitioner shall approach

the 2nd respondent Station House Officer with a

request for police protection.

(ii) On receipt of such request for police protection,

the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and take an

appropriate decision thereon, taking note of the

statutory provisions referred hereinbefore and also the

law laid down in the decisions referred to supra.

(iii) The 2nd respondent shall also take necessary

steps to ensure that there is no threat to the law and

order in the locality, at the instance of the 4 th

respondent or his workers.

The petitioner and also the 4th respondent shall cooperate

with the conciliation proceedings, which is now pending before

the Assistant Labour Officer, Chadayamangalam.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SYSTEM GENERATED GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE VIDE REGISTRATION NUMBER 32AHKPJ0529LIZE.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FTE & O LICENSE ISSUED BY THE ELAMADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3.10.2020 FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT BY EMAIL DATED 24.10.2020 TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT BY EMAIL DATED 30.11.2020 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL