Kerala High Court
Snowman Logistics Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)
PETITIONER:
SNOWMAN LOGISTICS LTD.,
SY.NO.70/1, 70/4 AND 70/5, AROOR PANCHAYATH,
CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-688 534,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SHRI.MUHAMMED ASHIK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.RAJA KANNAN
SRI.JAI MOHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
*2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,(CORRECTED)
AROOR POLICE STAITON, SALEM KOCHI KANYAKUMARI
HIGHWAY, CHANDIROOR, KERALA-688 535.
R2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AROOR POLICE STATION,
SALEM-KOCHI-KANYAKUMARI HIGH WAY, CHANDIROOR, KERALA-
688535.
(ADDRESS OF R2 CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 18-3-2021
IN IA 1/2021 IN WP(C) 6918/2021).
3 INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES SANGH(BMS),
REG. NO.03-5/93, BMS OFFICE, CHERTHALA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA-688 524, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY.
WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)
2
4 FACILITY MANAGEMENT AND HR OUTSOURCING SERVICES,
OLD PLA BHAVAN, 1ST STAGE, 1ST CROSS ROAD,
PEENYA, BENGALURU-560 058, KARNATAKA,
E-MAIL:[email protected]
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
5 DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA,
THONDANKULANGARA, THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA,
KERALA-688 013.
R3 BY ADV. SHRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
R3 BY ADV. SHRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN
R3 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL C THOMAS
R3 BY ADV. SRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL
R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.B.SOORI
R3 BY ADV. SHRI.BABU M.
R3 BY ADV. SHRI.NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN
R3 BY ADV. SRI.HAARIS MOOSA
R3 BY ADV. SMT.DEVYANI
R3 BY ADV. SMT.NIKHITA ANN REBELLO
R3 BY ADV. SHRI.ADESH JOSHI
R1,R2 & R5 BY SRI SUNIL NATH N.B, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, which is stated to be an integrated
temperature controlled logistics service provider operating on pan-
India basis, in the field of storage and delivery of temperature
sensitive products such as diary items, frozen poultry products,
fruits, etc., has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the
2nd respondent Station House Officer to provide adequate police
protection to the life of the petitioner's employees, workers,
customers and other associates who visit the petitioner's
warehouse, from the actions of the 3 rd respondent Union and other
persons acting through them or at their behest. The petitioner has
also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2 nd
respondent to ensure that the 3 rd respondent or any persons acting
through them or at their behest do not cause any obstruction to
the smooth functioning of the petitioner's establishment or cause
any obstruction to the free ingress and egress of the managerial
staff, employees, workers, customers, other associates and
vehicles of the petitioner to and from the petitioner's warehouse
and premises; and a direction restricting and restraining the 3 rd
WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)
respondent or any persons acting through them or at their behest
from staging dharna or strike or agitation or engaging in any
activities of similar nature which is likely to obstruct the smooth
functioning of the petitioner's establishment in any manner
whatsoever, within a radius of 500 meters from the boundary wall
of the petitioner's warehouse. In the writ petition, it is alleged
that the members of the 3 rd respondent Union is disturbing the
warehousing and transportation activities of the petitioner claiming
additional benefits over and above what they are legally entitled.
The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint dated 12.01.2021 before
the 2nd respondent seeking police protection. Based on a complaint
made by the 3rd respondent Union, the 5th respondent District
Labour Officer has issued Ext.P3 notice dated 28.01.2021 to the
petitioner.
2. On 18.03.2021, when this writ petition came up for
admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on
admission for respondents 1, 2 and 5. Urgent notice on admission
by special messenger was ordered to the 3 rd respondent, returnable
by 23.03.2021. The petitioner was directed to take out notice to
the 4th respondent by E-mail and to provide scanned copy of the
WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)
writ petition to the registry on that day itself. This Court granted an
interim order directing the 2nd respondent Station House Officer to
take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and
order in the locality, in connection with any protest/agitation made
by the 3rd respondent union and its members. It was made clear
that the above order will not stand in the way of the 3 rd respondent
union and its members having any protest/agitation in a
democratic manner, without causing any obstruction to the smooth
functioning of the petitioner's establishment.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3 rd respondent,
opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, in which certain
labour issues are pointed out.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 5, the
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and also the learned counsel
for the 4th respondent.
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
WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)
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.
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
WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)
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."
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,
WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)
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.
9. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would
submit that in terms of the interim order of this Court dated
WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)
18.03.2021, the 2nd respondent Station House Officer has taken
necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order
in the locality, in connection with any protest/agitation by the
members of the 3rd respondent Union.
10. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit
that the Union has already raised certain labour issues, which are
now pending conciliation before the 5 th respondent District Labour
Officer.
11. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would submit
that the 4th respondent contractor retrenched few of its workers, in
accordance with law. The 4th respondent shall co-operate with the
conciliation proceedings pending before the 5th respondent.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
i) The 2nd respondent Station House Officer shall take
necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and
order in the locality, in connection with any protest/agitation
by the members of the 3rd respondent Union.
ii) In case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner's
employees, workers, customers and associates of the
petitioner or threat to law and order in the locality, at the
WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)
instance of the members of the 3rd respondent Union, the
petitioner shall move the 2nd respondent Station House
Officer, with a proper request for police protection.
iii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by
the petitioner, the 2nd 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.
iv) This judgment will not stand in the way of the workers
of the 3rd respondent Union staging any protest/agitation in a
democratic manner, without adversely affecting the smooth
functioning of the petitioner's establishment.
v) Both parties shall co-operate with the conciliation
proceedings pending before the concerned Labour Officer.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
JV JUDGE
WP(C).No.6918 OF 2021(L)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED
02.09.2019 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 12.01.2021 TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.01.2021
ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
ALAPPUZHA ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT MADE
BY THE DRIVERS.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
03.02.2021.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
15.03.2021 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
