AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner who runs a jewellery in the city of Calicut to direct respondents 1 to 7 to afford police protection to the petitioner for the removal of "the stock of the jewellery and diamonds in the shop for the petitioner". According to the petitioner, he has closed down his unit at Calicut. The employees therein, that is the respondents 10 to 27, have not peacefully accepted the alleged closure. They are not permitting the petitioner to remove the stock of jewellery and diamonds in his shop. Respondents 10 to 27 are represented by the 9th respondent, a trade union. The labour dispute is pending before the 8th respondent, District Labour Officer.
According to the petitioner, costly stock of diamonds and jewellery are available in the shop. The petitioner wants to remove the said costly stock of jewellery and diamonds in the shop. According to the petitioner, respondents 9 to 27 and their men are illegally obstructing the removal of the stock of jewellery and diamonds. Ext. P2 application made by the petitioner before the second respondent has not succeeded in evoking any proper response and action. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come before this Court with this petition.
Various allegations are raised against respondents 9 to 27. We deem it unnecessary to advert to all those allegations raised. The submission of relevance is that the petitioner''s attempt to remove the stock of jewellery and diamonds in the shop is being illegally obstructed. Petitioner will be satisfied, if he is permitted to remove the stock of jewellery and diamonds without any obstruction or hindrance by respondents 9 to 27 and their men. If there be any obstruction, police protection deserves to be granted in favour of the petitioner. This is the only top submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Respondents 1 to 8 are represented by the learned State Attorney and respondents 9 to 27 are represented by their counsel.
On behalf of the respondents 1 to 8, it is submitted that appropriate directions may be issued and that shall be complied by respondents 1 to 8. For respondents 9 to 27, the learned counsel denies and disputes the various allegations and averments raised against them. The allegations are incorrect and false, it is submitted. Respondents 9 to 27 are only engaged in peaceful protest. According to them, there is no true, genuine and honest closure of the establishment. The employees had joined the 9th respondent, trade union and that fact was conveyed to the employer. The employer as an act of retaliation, is advancing a specious plea that the establishment has been closed. There is no true, genuine, honest or bona fide closure. Respondents 9 to 27 are entitled in law to protest and raise their objections against the mala fide course of action resorted to by the management, contends the counsel.
The learned counsel for the respondents 9 to 27 states categorically that those respondents and persons acting under them have no intention to obstruct the removal of the stock of jewellery and diamonds in the shop by the petitioner. The police protection is being claimed to frustrate and thwart the attempt of the employees and their trade union to raise protest against the illegal denial of employment to the employees under the guise of an alleged closure. The petitioner can at any time come to the establishment and remove the stock of jewellery and diamonds. Respondents 9 to 27 shall not raise any objections against the same, it is categorically undertaken by the learned counsel for respondents 9 to 27.
Virtually, we find that the parties are not having any dispute relevant to the subject matter of the writ petition. Even specific directions do not appear to be necessary in the light of the stand taken by the respondents 9 to 27. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the ground this is not the attitude displayed by respondents 9 to 27. On behalf of the State Attorney, it is submitted that appropriate directions can be issued and the police shall ensure protection for the petitioner to remove the stock of jewellery and diamonds if there be any obstruction.
In the result, this petition is allowed. We accept the submissions of the learned counsel for respondents 9 to 27 that those respondents shall not raise any obstruction or cause any hindrance to the removal of the stock of jewellery and diamonds from the shop of the petitioner. If there be any illegal obstruction, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain before respondents 1 to 5, who shall thereupon ensure that adequate police protection is afforded to the petitioner to remove the stock of jewellery and diamonds from his shop.
It is made clear that this order shall not prejudice the rights of the employees to peacefully protest against the decision of the employer to deny employment to them on the alleged plea that the establishment is closed. Any other rights of the rival contestants is not intended to be fettered by this order. Hand over on both sides.