AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Duraiswamy, J.—The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to take immediate action on the two complaints dated 15.1.2015 given by the Petitioner Company and to give adequate Police Protection to it and prevent anyone entering within the 500 Meters radius of its (i) Unit-I at 244/1, Odhiampet Village, Villianur, Puducherry-605 110, (ii) Unit-II at 49, Villupuram Main Road, Villianur, Puducherry-605 110 and (iii) Unit-III at R.S. No.91/2-B, Virummal Koil Street, Kakayanthope, Ariyankuppam, Puducherry and its Retail Out-lets and other properties in Puducherry, indulging in any violent activities, carrying out any demonstrations, meetings, disrupting its manufacturing activities, block its vehicular movements etc..
It is the case of the petitioner that the Memorandum of Settlement is in force and binding on the petitioner, the 7th respondent and all its 576 members for a period of three years from 1.10.2011 to 30.09.2014. Further, according to the petitioner, even thereafter, it shall continue to be in force and binding on all of them till it is terminated after the expiry of the three years period. Therefore, the Memorandum of Settlement under Sec. 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act dated 31.01.2012 is in force and operation and binding on the 7th respondent Union.
The petitioner Company contended that in violation of the Memorandum of Settlement under Sec. 12(3) of Industrial Dispute Act dated 31.01.2012 and also the provisions contained under Sec. 23(c) and (d) of the Industrial Dispute Act and without giving any reason, some of the workers resorted to sudden illegal stay-in strike from 10.15 a.m on 25.09.2013 and eight of the workmen have taken the law into their own hands.
Heard Mr.T.P. Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Tamilvanan, learned Government Advocate (Pondy.) for the respondents 1 to 6.
The petitioner has stated that 90% of the workers of the Petitioner Company are women. In Paragraph-9 of the Affidavit, filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has stated that on 13.1.2015, a person, claiming himself as a leader of the Panthers of Indian Party had called them over phone and threatened them to come to his terms and failing which, he has warned the petitioner to face dire consequences.
On the same day, the petitioner also received another call from another political leader, threatening of dire consequences.
In these circumstances, the petitioner has given two complaints to the respondents 5 and 6 on 15.1.2015, requesting them to provide police protection to their Units, Officers and its employees to avoid occurring any untoward incident in and around their Units.
On instructions, Mr.A. Tamilvanan, learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) submitted that the respondents 1 to 6 are providing police protection to the petitioner Company and that they would continue to provide police protection to its Units also.
Since it was contended by the petitioner that 90% of the Workers are women, the respondents 1 to 6 should also deploy women police to prevent any untoward incident.
In these circumstances, I direct the respondents 1 to 6 to give adequate police protection to the Petitioner''s Units I, II and III and also its retail-outlets and other properties in Puducherry preventing any one entering within the 500 Meters radius of its Units and their other properties.
As already stated, the respondents 1 to 6 shall also deploy women police for the Units of the Petitioner, since it was contended that 90% of the employees are women.
It is also made clear that the respondents 1 to 6, in the guise of giving protection, shall not indulge in breaking the strike.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.