M/S. Hotel Samudra vs The Sub Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 7529 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

    THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.29182 OF 2020(W)


PETITIONER:

               M/S. HOTEL SAMUDRA,
               SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
               MANAGING PARTNER, JOHN KALLAT, AGED 75 YEARS,
               S/O. LATE VARGHESE

               BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
               SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571

      2        THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
               SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      3        THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
               THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670141.

      4        THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
               KANNUR - 670001.

      5        THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW AND ORDER)
               POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

      6        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY(HOME AFFAIRS),
               GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

      7        THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
               KANNUR - 670001.

      8        SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU)
               REPRESENTED BY ITS AREA SECRETARY, SREEKANDAPURAM,
               KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      9        VINOD P
               S/O. RAVEENDRAN, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND
               ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), SREEKANDAPURAM,
               KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.
 WP(C).No.29182 OF 2020       2

      10     JOSEPH THOMAS @ BIJU
             S/O. THOMAS, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND
             ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      11     BINOY PHILIP
             S/O. PHILIP, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND
             ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      12     KURIAN
             S/O. SIMON, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND
             ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      13     SANTHOSH N.S
             S/O. SUKUMARAN, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND
             ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      14     PRINCE MATHEW
             S/O. MATHEW, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND
             ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      15     PRASANTHAN T.K,
             S/O. GOVINDAN T.K, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND
             ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      16     MANOJ P.V
             S/O.K.V RAGHAVAN, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND
             ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      17     SHOBIN
             S/O.GEORGE, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND
             ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      18     ANURAG A.K
             S/O. BALAN C.P, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND
             ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      19     RAJU P.R
             S/O.RAJAPPAN, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND
             ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.
 WP(C).No.29182 OF 2020       3


      20     NARAYANAN K.V
             S/O. CHATHU NAIR, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND
             ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      21     ANOOPKUMAR K
             S/O. M.NANU, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND
             ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      22     RAJEEV E
             S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS
             AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      23     SURESH K. V
             S/O. RAGHAVAN,WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS AND
             ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

      24     AKHIL M.P
             S/O. PRABHAKARAN M.K, WORKER, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SHOPS
             AND ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU),
             SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571.

             R9-24 BY ADV. SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP



             SRI PP THAJUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.29182 OF 2020                 4




                                  JUDGMENT

M/s. Samudra, the petitioner herein, is a firm running a hotel with

three star classification. They were operating with a FL-3 license issued

under the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. The petitioner contends that the lock

down imposed by the Government to restrict the spread of the deadly

pandemic destroyed their business as they were not able to open the bar.

They had to close down the hotel for quite some time due to the lockdown

and even thereafter, the footfall was minimal. In order to stay afloat, they

had to terminate the service of some of their employees. According to the

petitioner, compensation due to them as mandated under law was paid.

However, the employees started an agitation and obstructed the functioning

of the hotel. In the said circumstances, they submitted Ext.P1

representation before the police. The grievance of the petitioner is that no

action was taken. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is

before this Court seeking directions to the respondents 1 to 4 to afford

effective protection to the management, willing workers and staff of the

hotel and also for a further direction to ensure that the ingress and egress

into the hotel is not obstructed by the striking workers.

2. The respondents 9 to 24 have filed a counter affidavit wherein

it is stated that the party respondents have never resorted to any illegal

means of protest or to cause any disruption to the smooth running of the

business. It is contended that after the lockdown when the hotel was

opened in May, 2020 for selling IMFL adopting the virtual queue system

only a few workers were granted employment. The rest of the workers

were denied their salary. The said illegality is being perpetrated even now.

The workers demanded that all the workers in the rolls of the petitioner

establishment be granted employment on rotation basis. However, the

management did not accede to the said request. In the said circumstances,

the workers lodged Ext.R9(A) complaint before the District Labour Officer,

Kannur. Conciliation talks were initiated but the management took an

indifferent stand and refused to appear to sort out the dispute. This fact is

evident from Ext.R9(B) minutes as well. It is stated that the full functioning

of the hotel commenced on 22.12.2020 but the workers were not allowed

to join duty. When they were illegally denied employment, all that they

have done is resort to peaceful protest near the entrance of the

establishment. The ingress and egress to the hotel was not obstructed. It

is stated that the workers have lodged Ext.R9(C) before the 7th respondent

and during its pendency, retrenchment notices were issued. According to

the respondents, the instant writ petition is filed to defeat the legitimate

grievances raised by the workers.

3. I have heard Sri. M.G.Karthikeyan, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Nandagopal S. Kurup, the learned counsel

appearing for the party respondents and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that a huge posse

of police officers is posted outside the hotel pursuant to the interim order

issued by this Court on 29.12.2020. It is contended that law and order is

being maintained and the directions issued by this Court is being complied

with.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced. It is apparent

from the submissions advanced by both sides that a labour dispute is

pending between the management and the workers. When the

management asserts that the business has spiraled down due to the

pandemic and that they are not in a position to carry on with a bloated

workforce, the workers contend that they are being deprived of even their

salary and are being denied employment. I find that the dispute is now

pending before the District Labour Officer, Kannur.

6. The party respondents, who admittedly are in the rolls of the

petitioner, have the right to resort to strike or dharna to effectively bargain

with the management and to ensure that unfair labour practices are

avoided. As held by this court in Balakrishna Transport v.

Superintendent of Police1, strike is only a form of demonstration and the

right to strike as well as the right to demonstrate are important weapons in

the armoury of workers. However, in the guise of a strike, the party

respondents cannot resort to violence with a view to intimidate and force

the management to succumb to their demands. Even if the demand is

legitimate, if the management for one reason or the other do not accede to

their demand, the only option is to resolve the dispute in a manner known

to law.

7. Now that the matter is pending before the District Labour

Officer, Kannur and conciliation proceedings are pending, necessary

directions can be issued to expedite the conciliation proceedings and take

the matter to its logical conclusion within a time frame. While conciliation

proceedings are pending, the party respondents will not be justified in

obstructing the entry into the hotel or in threatening or intimidating the

management, the willing workers or customers.

8. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 7th

respondent before whom Ext.R9(A) and R9(C) are pending to expedite the

conciliation proceedings and make an earnest attempt to settle the entire

disputes expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The party respondents shall not

1 [1990 (1) KLT 435]

obstruct the ingress or egress into the hotel and shall not commit any acts

of violence or intimidation of either the willing workers, management or

customers. If the above direction is violated, it is for the petitioner to lodge

a complaint before the 2nd respondent, who shall enquire into the same

and if the grievance is found genuine, appropriate action shall be taken

against the concerned persons.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE NS

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.27473/2020.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R9(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE CANNANORE SHOP & ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOYEE'S UNION TO THE DLO, KANNUR

EXHIBIT R9(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING CONVENED BY THE DLO, KANNUR ON 21.10.2020

EXHIBIT R9(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.12.2020 PREFERRED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 9 TO 24 BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT R9(D) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 9TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT R9(E) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 06.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER