Kerala High Court
M/S Hexanet Infra Solutions Private ... vs Vodafone Idea Limited on 4 June, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 14811 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
M/S HEXANET INFRA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
4/448 D, CHERUTHOTTIL, NEAR THURUTHI TEMPLE,
CHAMBAKKARA, MARADU PO, ERNAKULAM , REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DANNY ABRAHAM, PIN - 682304
P.RAMAKRISHNAN
PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)
C.ANIL KUMAR
PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
GOKUL KRISHNA
MANOJKUMAR G.
ASHOK MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED
VJ TOWER, SERVICE ROAD, VYTTILA PO, ERNAKULAM - KOCHI ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER., PIN - 682019
2 BHARATHEEYA PRIVATE TELECOM MAZDOOR SANGH
MARAYIL LANE, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH PO,
ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 682018
3 THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, OOLIMUGAL,
KAKKANAD, VAYUSENA ROAD, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI, PIN -
682021
4 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, SASTHAMANGALAM PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
5 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
6 CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, OFFICE OF THE CITY POLICE
COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
WP(C) NO. 14811 OF 2024
2
7 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM, PIN -
691001
8 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM RURAL
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM RURAL,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
9 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, IDUKKI
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, IDUKKI, PIN -
685603
10 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688012
11 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOTTAYAM
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOTTAYAM, PIN
- 686002
12 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676505
13 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, WAYANAD
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, WAYANAD, PIN
- 673122
14 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOZHIKODE
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673004
15 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOZHIKODE RURAL
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOZHIKODE
RURAL, VATAKARA, PIN - 673004
16 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR, PIN
- 680003
17 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR RURAL
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR
RURAL, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
WP(C) NO. 14811 OF 2024
3
18 CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER
KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
19 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA, PIN - 683101
20 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689545
21 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678014
22 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 682031
SATHISAN .P
JAVED HAIDER(K/001709/2018)
ABHIRAM SUNISH(K/001195/2022)
SHIBU B.S(K/001060/2021)
BIJU P.PAUL(K/000648/2022)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 14811 OF 2024
4
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that it is a company registered under
the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and that it provides
"field maintenance support" to the 1 st respondent - Telecom
Service Provider. They say that they have engaged technical
persons for maintenance of telecom equipments and corollary
devices belonging to the 1st respondent at various sites in the
Districts of the State, and that their arrangement is based on
yearly contracts.
2. The petitioner says that, however, when they engaged in
their activities, the 2 nd respondent - Union, meted out threats
and intimidation, making certain usurious and untenable
demands, which they could not accede to; consequent to which,
they threatened to go on strike, which was attempted to be then
resolved amicably by the 3rd respondent, as evident by Ext. P4.
They say that, however, exhibiting scant regard for the Authority
of the 3rd respondent, the members of the 2 nd respondent went on
strike; and thus that they had no other option but to make
complaints before the various Police Stations - the copy of one
which has been produced as Ext.P5 - seeking protection. They
WP(C) NO. 14811 OF 2024
allege that, the Police have not taken effective action and that
this is deleterious because, disruptions to telecom services on
account of the illegal activities of the 2 nd respondent, is a matter
of concern not only to themselves or to the 1 st respondent, but to
the numerous customers.
3. The petitioner, therefore, prays that respondents 3 to 21
be directed to provide adequate and effective protection to their
workers, so as to enable them to continue with their
maintenance work at the sites of the 1st respondent.
4. Sri.P.Ramakrishnan- learned counsel for the petitioner,
in addition to the afore, argued that the attempt of the 2 nd
respondent and their members to call strikes, without complying
with the statutory requirements under the Industrial Disputes
Act, particularly Section 22 thereof, is illegal and therefore,
liable to be interdicted by this Court. He contended that since
the services provided by the 1 st respondent is an essential
service, the provisions of the Essential Services Maintenance
Act, 1968 would also apply; and thus reiteratingly prayed that
the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition be granted.
5. Sri. P.Satheesan - learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st
WP(C) NO. 14811 OF 2024
respondent, adopted the afore submissions of Sri.
P.Ramakrishnan and argued that this is a fit case where the
reliefs sought for ought to be granted, since otherwise, the
telecom services would be very seriously prejudiced.
6. Smt. Rekha.C.Nair - learned Senior Government Pleader,
submitted that the Police have already taken action and are
continuing to maintain peace at every place where the telecom
equipments of the 1st respondent have been established. She
added that the Police are keeping a close vigil on all such sites
and are responding as and when any complaint is made; and
hence prayed that this Writ Petition be allowed, permitting her
clients to act in such manner.
7. The endorsements on the file show that the summons to
the 2nd respondent has been validly served. They are, however,
not present today nor they are represented through Counsel;
thus inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have
nothing to offer in opposition to the reliefs claimed by the
petitioner in this Writ Petition.
8. Since it remains uncontested, the contentions of the
petitioner, that they are engaged in an essential service and that
WP(C) NO. 14811 OF 2024
the 2nd respondent or their members had not issued any notice
under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, are ones that
this Court can take judicial notice of. In any event, even if they
are acting under the provisions of law, it would not give the 2 nd
respondent any right to take law into their own hands, or to
cause physical obstructions, or unleash violence, since it will be
anathema to the principles of Rule of Law, by which we are
governed.
9. The Police Authorities require to ensure that no one is
allowed to take law into their own hands, or that the disputes, if
any, between the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent, do not
degenerate in to a law and order issue.
10. In the afore circumstances, I am certain that the afore
submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader requires
to be recorded, which I do so; consequentially directing
respondents 3 to 21 to ensure that the petitioner and their
employees are afforded adequate and effective protection to act
as per law and the contract obligations with the 1 st respondent.
11. The 4th respondent - State Police Chief will cause to
ensure that these directions are implicitly complied with, by
WP(C) NO. 14811 OF 2024
maintaining vigil on a continuous basis.
Needless to say, as far as the 2nd respondent is concerned,
if they have any legal cause against the petitioner, their right to
invoke remedies before the appropriate Court/forum is fully left
open; for which purpose, their contentions are also left
undecided.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
ank
WP(C) NO. 14811 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14811/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ON 01/10/2023
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 7/3/2024 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 23/3/2024 ISSUED
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 26/3/2024
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ELAVUMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
DATED 28/3/2024
Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 1/4/2024 IN WP
Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 3/4/2024
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT WITH COPIES TO RESPONDENTS 5 TO
