AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—Petitioner company has again come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to Respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection for the Petitioner.
According to the Petitioner, the 3rd Respondent herein was an employee of the Petitioner at its Kollam branch. He and some others started attempting to obstruct the working of the Petitioner''s Kollam branch, obliging the Petitioner to come to this Court with Writ Petition No. 5587 of 2011 claiming police protection. When that matter came up before Court, accepting the undertaking of the Respondents, including the 3rd Respondent herein, Ext.P1 judgment was passed. That related to the alleged obstruction at the Kollam office of the Petitioner.
According to the Petitioner, Respondents 3 and 4, who are conscious of the fact that they are bound by Ext.P1, have now shifted their illegal conduct of obstruction to the branch of the Petitioner at Kottarakkara. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that there is illegal obstruction against the peaceful and orderly functioning of the Petitioner''s branch at Kottarakkara. It is, in these circumstances, that the Petitioner has come to this Court again with this petition claiming protection.
Respondents 3 and 4 have entered appearance through a counsel. The learned Counsel submits that Respondents 3 and 4 have no intention whatsoever to obstruct the functioning of the Kottarakkara branch of the Petitioner. They undertake that there shall not be any obstruction against willing workers or customers. Their access to the office of the Petitioner at Kottarakkara shall not in any way be obstructed. They are interested only in peacefully demonstrating against the alleged illegal termination of the 3rd Respondent. Preserving the right of Respondents 3 and 4 and other members of the association of workers to hold such peaceful demonstration, appropriate directions can be issued, concedes the learned Counsel for Respondents 3 and 4. Identical directions as were issued in Ext.P1 can be issued in favor of the Petitioner in respect of Kottarakkara branch or any other branch of the Petitioner. In these circumstances, the learned Counsel for Respondents 3 and 4 submits that the right of Respondents 3 and 4 to stage peaceful demonstration against the alleged illegal termination of the 3rd Respondent may not be fettered.
We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We take note of the submission by Respondents 3 and 4. Respondent No. 4, we note, is arrayed as the General Secretary of the AITUC District Committee Office, which is said to be the union espousing the cause of the 3rd Respondent.
In the result:
a) This Writ Petition is allowed;
b) Respondents 1 and 2 shall afford police protection to the Petitioner to run its branch at Kottarakkara or other branches wherever it is situated. Respondent No. 2 shall enforce this direction within his jurisdiction. Respondent No. 1 shall enforce this direction throughout his jurisdiction;
c) We make it clear that this direction for police protection shall not in any way fetter the option of Respondents 3 and 4 and the union representing them to stage peaceful demonstrations against the alleged illegal termination of the 3rd Respondent. We make it clear that access for customers and willing workers shall not in any way be obstructed by Respondents 3 and 4 and their union.