Kerala High Court

K. Yesodharan vs State Of Kerala on 24 March, 2021

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.3846 OF 2021(E)


PETITIONER:

               K. YESODHARAN
               AGED 62 YEARS
               S/O. KESAVAN, MANAGING PARTNER,
               RACHANA GRANITES AND CERAMICS,
               RACHANA, YEROOR P. O.,
               ANCHAL P. O., KOLLAM.

               BY ADVS.
               SMT. SINDHU SANTHALINGAM
               SRI. ABRAHAM K. GEORGE
               SMT. JESSY S. SALIM

RESPONDENTS:

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

      2        CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION,
               VENJARAMOODU,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 607.

      3        BALU
               INTUC, KEEZHAIKONAM,
               VENJARAMOODU - 695 607,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

      4        SURESH
               INTUC, KEEZHAIKONAM,
               VENJARAMOODU - 695 607,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

      5        ANISH
               INTUC, KEEZHAIKONAM,
               VENJARAMOODU - 695 607,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
 W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021

                                 2

       6       LABOUR OFFICER
               VENJARAMOODU - 695 607,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

       7       SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
               HOME DEPARTMENT,
               SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

       *ADDL. THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,
       R8     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE
              KAUSTHUBAM COMPLEX,
              CHENTHITTA,
              THIRUVANANTHAPUAM - 695 036.

               *ADDL.R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
               26.02.2021 IN IA NO. 1/2021 IN WPC NO.3846/2021.

               SRI. SUNIL NATH N. B - GOVERNMENT PLEADER
               R8 - SRI. THOMAS ABRAHAM


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021

                                      3

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is a Managing Partner of Rachana Granites

and Ceramics at Anchal, has filed this writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding the 2nd respondent Circle Inspector of Police,

Venjaramoodu Police Station to render necessary police protection

to enable the petitioner to open and function its show room at

Venjaramoodu. The petitioner has also sought for declaration that

respondents 3 to 5 have no right to interfere and interrupt the

petitioner's business at Venjaramoodu. In the writ petition, it is

alleged that respondents 3 to 5 and the headload workers, who are

members of their Union, are causing obstruction to the loading and

unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner

submitted Ext.P2 complaint dated 01.02.2021 before the 2nd

respondent seeking police protection and thereafter moved this

writ petition before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

2. On 15.02.2001, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the petitioner was directed to file an application to

implead the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board as additional

respondent.

W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021

3. On 26.02.2021, this Court allowed I.A No.1 of 2021 filed

by the petitioner and the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board

was impleaded as additional 8th respondent. The learned

Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1, 2,

6 and 7. The learned Standing Counsel took notice on admission

for the additional 8th respondent. Urgent notice on admission was

ordered to respondents 3 to 5 by speed post, returnable within

three weeks. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get

instructions and file statement of the 2 nd respondent. The learned

Standing Counsel for the additional 8th respondent submitted that

the petitioner's establishment is not situated in a scheme covered

area.

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the

learned Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2, 6 and 7 and the

learned Standing Counsel for the additional 8 th respondent.

Despite service of notice none appears for respondents 3 to 5.

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 W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021

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

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 W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021

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 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 W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021

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, 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. In Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998 (2) W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021

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

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 W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021

circumstances also which would justify grant of such direction in

the facts of a particular case.

10. The learned Standing Counsel for the additional 8th

respondent would submit that the petitioner's establishment is not

situated in a scheme covered area.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

since the establishment of the petitioner is not in a scheme covered

area, the petitioner is entitled to engage his own workers for

loading and unloading activities in that establishment. Respondents

3 to 5 or the headload workers, who are members of their Union,

have no legal right to cause any obstruction to the loading and

unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment.

12. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would

submit that at present there is no law and order issues in the

locality.

13. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record

and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both

sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The 2nd respondent Circle Inspector of Police shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, in connection with the loading W.P(C).No.3846 OF 2021

and unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment by engaging his own workers, at the instance of respondents 3 to 5 and the headload workers, who are the members of their Union.

(ii) In case there is any threat to law and order in the locality or any threat to the life of the petitioner and his workers, from the side of respondents 3 to 5, in connection with any loading and unloading activities in the establishment in question, the petitioner shall move the 2nd respondent with a 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.