Kerala High Court
Shaji Wilson vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 4 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA,
1942
WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W)
PETITIONER :
SHAJI WILSON
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.S.WILSON, THUNIYAMBRAL THAZHE,
PALLICKATHODU, ANIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.SUNIL
SMT.AISWARYA VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686506.
2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION, MUNDAKKAYAM, PIN-
686513.
3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION, MUNDAKKAYAM, PIN-
686513.
4 C.A.THOMAS,
SECRETARY, INTUC, CHETHIYIL, KORUTHODE P.O.,
PALLIPPADI, MUNDAKKAYAM, PIN-686513.
5 APPUKKUTTAN,
SECRETARY, INTUC, CHETHIYIL, KORUTHODE P.O.,
PALLIPPADI, MUNDAKKAYAM, PIN-686513.
-2-
WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W)
6 APPUKKUTTAN,
SECRETARY, CITU, CITU OFFICE, KORUTHODE, PIN-
686513.
7 THE BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS),
REGIONAL OFFICE, MUNDAKKAYAM, PIN-686513.
8 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,
NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686002, REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY.
R8 BY SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB
R1 TO 4 BY SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT
PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is a contractor by profession, has
filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents
1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the
petitioner, his employees and the machineries engaged in the
work site of a four storied building at Koruthode near
Mundakkayam town, in the property owned by one Lissy
Sebastian. In the writ petition it is alleged that respondents 4
to 8, are causing obstruction to the construction of a building
having a total plinth area of 5000 sq.ft., undertaken by the
petitioner in a property which is lying nearly 35 meters below
the road level.
2. On 25.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for
admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on
admission for respondents 1 to 3. This Court issued urgent
notice on admission by special messenger to respondents 4 to
7 returnable by 02.03.2021. The learned Standing Counsel
took notice for the 8th respondent.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3
WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W)
and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 8 th respondent.
Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 4 to
7.
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
WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W)
(b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property,
human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance 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
WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W)
principle in Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of
Maharashtra [(2019) 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 parties, are,
WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W)
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.4984 OF 2021(W)
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. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition
is against the obstruction alleged to have been caused by
respondents 4 to 8, who are the headload workers in the
locality, in the construction of a building in the property in
question. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that respondents 4 to 8 have absolutely no right to claim work
in connection with the construction of the building.
WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W)
10. The learned Standing Counsel for the 8th
respondent would submit that the area in which the petitioner
is undertaking construction of the building is not a scheme
covered area.
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 shall take necessary steps to
ensure that there is no threat to law and order in
the locality, at the instance of respondents 4 to 8
or the headload workers under them, in
connection with the construction of the building,
in the property of one Lissy Sebastian, in case
such construction is on the strength of a valid
building permit.
(ii) In case there is any threat to the life of the
petitioner or the workers engaged by him, from
the side of respondents 4 to 8 or the headload
workers under them, the petitioner shall move
the 3rd respondent Station House Officer with a
request for Police protection.
(iii) In case any such request for Police protection is
WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W)
made by the petitioner, 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.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
AV/4/3
WP(C).No.4984 OF 2021(W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
CONSTRUCTION SITE AND THE PARTIALLY
CONSTRUCTED BUILDING.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
22.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
