Sterling Holiday Resorts Ltd vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 10069 Ker

               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

                      W.P.(C) No.6335 OF 2021(N)


PETITIONERS:

      1        STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS LTD.,
               CHINNAKANAL POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT
               REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
               SHRI. SHYJU T.V.

      2        SHYJU T.V.,
               GENERAL MANAGER, STERLING MUNNAR,
               CHINNAKANAL POST,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 618.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
               SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
               SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
               SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY
               SHRI.JYOTHISH KRISHNA
               SHRI.AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
               SHRI.KURIAN OOMMEN THERAKATH


RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
               HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      2        THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
               MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 612.

      3        STATION HOUSE OFFICER
               (CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE),
               SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION,
               SANTHANPARA, IDUKKI-685 619.

      4        THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER,
               NEDUNKANDAM, IDUKKI-685 553.
 W.P.(C) No.6335 OF 2021(N)
                                -2-

       5       IDUKKI DISTRICT HOTELS,
               RESORTS AND SHOP WORKERS UNION,
               A.I.T.U.C. REGD. NO.290/84, MUNNAR,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT-685612
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

               SRI.SUNIL NATH N.B., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.6335 OF 2021(N)
                                 -3-


                             JUDGMENT

The 1st petitioner, which is a company incorporated under the

Companies Act having a resort situated at Chinnakanal near

Munnar in Idukki District, and the 2nd petitioner, who is the General

Manager of that resort, have filed this writ petition under Article

266 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding respondents 2 and 3 to afford adequate and effective

protection for smooth functioning of the resort 'Sterling Munnar' at

Chinnakanal and for free ingress and egress of employees, guests,

vehicles, goods, contract workers to and from the resort premises

and for free movement of employees, vehicles, guests, etc. The

petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding

respondents 2 and 3 to ensure that law and order is strictly

maintained at the entrance and inside the petitioners' resort

'Sterling Munnar' and also to ensure that no dharna, march or

demonstrations are taken out by or under the leadership of the 5 th

respondent, as threatened by them, within a radius of 100 metres

from the entrance of the resort. In the writ petition, it is alleged

that, in connection with deputation of one employee who was

working as bellboy to the resort of the petitioner Company at W.P.(C) No.6335 OF 2021(N)

Ootty, vide Ext.P1 order dated 05.02.2021, the 5 th respondent

Workers' Union issued Ext.P2 notice dated 27.02.2021 for staging

dharna in front of the resort. The petitioners submitted Ext.P3

complaint dated 09.03.2021 before the 3rd respondent Station

House Officer, seeking police protection and thereafter, moved this

writ petition before this Court, seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

2. On 10.03.2021, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on

admission for respondents 1 to 4. Urgent notice on admission by

special messenger was ordered to the 5th respondent, returnable

by 12.03.2021. The learned Government Pleader was directed to

get instructions.

3. On 12.03.2021, when this writ petition was taken up for

consideration, this Court passed the following order;

"Having considered the averments in the writ petition and also the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader, there will be an interim order directing the 3 rd 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 by the 5th respondent Workers Union or its members. Any such protest/agitation shall be without W.P.(C) No.6335 OF 2021(N)

causing any obstruction whatsoever to free ingress and egress to the petitioners establishment and without affecting the smooth functioning of that establishment."

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also

the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

Despite service of notice, none appears for the 5th 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 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 W.P.(C) No.6335 OF 2021(N)

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 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 W.P.(C) No.6335 OF 2021(N)

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

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 W.P.(C) No.6335 OF 2021(N)

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 counsel for the petitioners would submit

that, based on the interim order of this Court dated 12.03.2021,

the 3rd respondent Station House Officer has rendered necessary

police protection.

10. The learned Government Pleader would submit that, at

present there is no law and order issues in the locality.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions;

i) The 3rd respondent Station House Officer shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and W.P.(C) No.6335 OF 2021(N)

order in the locality, in connection with any protest/agitation by the members of the 5th respondent Workers' Union in front of the petitioner's resort in connection with Ext.P1 order.

ii) In case there is any threat to the life of the petitioners or threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of the 5th respondent Workers' Union, the petitioners shall move the 3rd respondent Station House Officer, with a proper request for police protection.

iii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioners, the 3rd 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) It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the members of the 5 th respondent Workers' Union staging any protest/agitation in a democratic manner, without causing any obstruction whatsoever, to the smooth functioning of the petitioners resort.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE bpr W.P.(C) No.6335 OF 2021(N)

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DEPUTATION DATED 05.02.2021.

EXHIBIT P2                   TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
                             27.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH
                             RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3                   TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
                             09.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL