Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Superintendent Of Police on 17 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.708 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.708 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3091 of 2021
1.Kanyakumari Mavatta Bharathiya Sumaithookum Thozilalar Sangam
Represented by its President,
R.Palvernan
Thadikkarankonam Branch,
Thadikkarankonam
Kanyakumari District.
2.Thovazhai Ondriya Sumai Thookum Tozhilalar Munnetra Sangam
Represented by its secretary,
M.Muthukutty,
Kuttipothai.
Thadikkarankonam
Kanyakumari District.
3.Kumari Mavatta Annai Sonia Raghul Gandhi General Workers Union
Represented by its President,
C.Mani,
Lazar Palammal Palace Campus,
Thadikkarankonam
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/10
W.A.(MD)No.708 of 2021
4.Kumari Mavatta Bharathiya Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam,
Represented by its President,
S.Sasikumar,
Palkulam Branch,
Thadikkarankonam,
Kanyakumari District.
5.Kumari Mavatta Hindu Masthoor Magasaba Pothu Thozhilalar Sangam
Represented by its Secretary,
S.Reji
Thadikkarankonam Branch,
Thadikkarankonam
Kanyakumari District.
... Proposed Appellants / Third Parties
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police
Kanyakumari District,
Kanyakumari.
2.The Inspector of Police
Keeripari Police Station,
Keeripari,
Kanykumari District.
3.The Sub Inspector of Police
Keeripari Police Station,
Keeripari,
Kanykumari District. ... Respondent 1 to 3 / Respondents
4.M.Alagarasan ... 4th Respondent / Writ Petitioner
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 02.12.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.17301 of 2020 on the file
of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/10
W.A.(MD)No.708 of 2021
For Appellants : Mrs.D.Geetha
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel for Government
For 4th Respondent : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
----
JUDGMENT
************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mrs.D.Geetha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for Government
appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the fourth respondent.
2.This writ appeal by third parties is directed against the order,
dated 02.12.2020, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 17301 of 2020.
3.The said writ petition was filed by the fourth respondent herein
praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent Police to
provide adequate police protection to the petitioner in the course of his lawful
loading and unloading of timber from the private estates in Kanyakumari
District, in the light of the representation, dated 13.11.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.708 of 2021
4.The writ petitioner's case is that no person can compel him to
engage one set of workman and his right to engage the workman cannot be
interfered with at the behest of any workers union.
5.The learned writ Court after taking note of in the case of S.Mani,
Proprietor S.Mani & Co., Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District, reported in 1992 (2) LW – 547, disposed of the writ
petition by directing the respondent police to consider the representation of the
writ petitioner in the light of the decision in the case of S.Mani, referred to
supra. The appellants, who are all Trade Unions, consisting of workers, who are
engaged in loading and unloading of various materials, in particular, timber.
The appellants grievance is that they were not impleaded as parties in the writ
petition and without hearing them, an order has been passed by directing the
police to give police protection to the writ petitioner by considering his
representation.
6.Further, it is submitted that already either of the party had given
police complaints against each other and the writ petitioner appeared before the
police authorities and an amicable settlement was arrived at, which was also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.708 of 2021
reduced into writing and ignoring such settlement and to prevent the members
of the appellant Union from being engaged for loading and unloading, the order
has been obtained from the learned writ court.
7.Furthermore, it is submitted that the decision in the case of S.Mani,
cannot be made applicable, because in the said decision there was a contest
between the workers and the management and by considering the facts, the
Court held that the management is entitled for protection.
8.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ
petitioner does not know, as to whom he is litigating against because there are
several trade unions and the writ petitioner has a right to engage his set of
workmen and the appellants cannot compel that their members alone have to be
engaged.
9. After elaborately hearing the learned counsel on either side, we are
of the view that the writ petitioner ought to have impleaded the employees
either in their personal capacity or their respective trade Union, in which, they
are members. It may be not be right for the writ petitioner to state that they are
unaware, who are workmen, because both the writ petitioner and the workers
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.708 of 2021
union appeared before the police and some arrangement was arrived at between
the parties.
10.We are not here to comment upon the enforceability of such
arrangements. But nevertheless, if such an arrangement had been arrived at and
owing to the issues arising pursuant thereto, if the writ petitioner wants to seek
for police protection by approaching this Court, in all fairness, the writ
petitioner should have impleaded the workmen or their union as parties.
11. The issue as to whether the writ petitioner has right to engage his
set of workmen and that he cannot be compelled has to be decided after hearing
both parties, namely, the workers union and the management. Much earlier, the
employees union have filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour, Nagercoil, on 7.12.2020 and on the same date, an enquiry notice was
sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, fixing the date of enquiry on
16.12.2020 and notice was sent to the writ petitioner. However, it appears that
the writ petitioner did not appear for such an enquiry.
12.Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the writ
petition requires to be re-heard, so that, not only the official respondents but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.708 of 2021
also the appellants trade union, who are to be impleaded as respondents in the
writ petition, should file their counter affidavit and after hearing the parties both
factual and legal issues can be decided. However, taking note of the fact that
the appellants are trade unions consisting of load men and the writ petitioner is
a timber merchant, there would be a circumstance, where the timber merchant
will have to depend upon the load man and in turn, the load man will have to
depend upon the timber merchant and this will be a general phenomena not with
specific reference to the appellants or to the writ petitioner alone.
13.Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the parties should
appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagercoil and present their
claims, so that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, can examine as to whether
a successful conciliation can be arrived at. In the event, the appellants and the
fourth respondent / writ petitioner are unable to arrive at any conclusion before
the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, they can very well come back to the writ
court and contest the matter.
14.In the light of the above, the writ appeal is allowed and the order
and directions issued in the writ petition is set aside and writ petition is restored
to the file of the learned Single Bench and the appellants are impleaded as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.708 of 2021
respondents 4 to 8 in the writ petition. Registry is directed to amend the cause
title. Further, there will be a direction to the appellants as well as to the writ
petitioner, to participate in the conciliation proceedings before the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Nagercoil, who shall issue a fresh notice fixing a
hearing date convenient to both parties in order to enable the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Nagercoil, to do so, the parties shall file a copy of this
judgment to the said authority, for appropriate action. The parties shall
participate in the conciliation proceedings without prejudice to the rights in the
writ petition and in the event of failure, they can always come back to the writ
Court and take an order of merits.
15.With the above direction, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
17.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.708 of 2021
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Superintendent of Police
Kanyakumari District,
Kanyakumari.
2.The Inspector of Police
Keeripari Police Station,
Keeripari,
Kanykumari District.
3.The Sub-Inspector of Police
Keeripari Police Station,
Keeripari,
Kanykumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.708 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
RM
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.708 of 2021
17.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
