AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—By consent main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. The Southern Textiles Limited, Coimbatore filed the above
writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to provide adequate police protection to their textiles
situated at Sulur, Coimbatore, 641 402 so as to smoothly run the Mill and thereby prevent the respondents 5 to 15 and their associate workmen
from, in any manner interfering or preventing the working of the mill or the free ingress and egress of the willing workmen, staff or such other
persons as are associated with the mill, into and out of the mill, or the transport and removal of raw material and finished goods to and from the
petitioner mill.
The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: It is a textile mill incorporated in the year 1949. Right from the date of its incorporation it is
involved in the manufacture of textile yarn. There was a change of management in the year 1974 and thereafter the present management is in
control of all the affairs of the petitioner mill. The petitioner mill now has a capacity of about 25,272 spindles and employs about 500 workmen. It
produces about 3,500 k.g. of textile yarn per day and the turn over is about Rs.5.5 lakhs per day. The business activities of the mill were going on
smoothly. While so, on 8-1-2002, the respondents 5 to 15 along with 57 other workmen went on an illegal stay in strike. The stay in strike
continued up-to 14-1-2002. Thereafter from 16-2-2002 the respondents 5 to 15 along with another 57 workmen went on an illegal strike, did not
report for work and instead they assembled in front of the petitioner mill, raised slogans and prevented the majority of the willing workmen from
entering the mill for work, and also threatening them with dire consequences if they went for work. They also prevented the free ingress and egress
of staff, finished goods and raw materials to and from the mill. This causes the petitioner financial loss to the tune of about Rs.5.5 lakhs per day.
The petitioner preferred a police complaint with the 4th respondent as early as on 8-1-2002 requesting him to give adequate police protection to
willing workers, staff and property of the petitioner mill. Another complaint was made before the 4th respondent on 19-1-2002 requesting them to
take action against respondents 5 to 15 and those few workmen who are involved in the illegal strike and preventing the majority of the willing
workmen from entering the petitioner''s campus for work. The action of the respondents 5 to 15 in going on a strike without any prior notice and
without any proper demand is totally illegal. Having aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents 1 to 4 and in the absence of any other
effective remedy, has filed the present writ petition.
Fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that on 7-1-2002 the petitioner
gave a petition at Sulur Police Station stating that one R. Balakrishnan, a worker of their mill threatened the time keeper of the mill with dire
consequences. That petition was duly enquired by him and the counter petitioner Balakrishnan was warned not to indulge in such practices. When
the workers resorted to stay in strike in the mill premises, the petitioner filed a complaint on 8-1-2002 at Sulur Police Station requesting for police
bandobust. This was duly enquired and no one came forward to state that he was prevented or threatened from entering into the said mill for work.
The mill authorities had already declared partial lock-our from 23-1-2002. Necessary police bandobust was provided to the petitioner mill. No
violence was reported, and no damages to persons and properties were caused. 350 loyal workers of men and women were working peacefully
during this period at this mill only due to the protection of police bandobust provided by him. One K. Ramasamy, District Secretary of Coimbatore
East District Textile workers Union, affiliated with C.I.T.U. gave a petition on 30-01-2002 for permission for continuous fasting from 1-2-2002
and demonstrations in front of the petitioner mill from 5-2-2002 by their Union members. In view of the probable tense situation, his request was
dis-allowed and maintained peace and harmony at the mill premises by making effective police activities at that area. On account of the partial
lock-out declared on 27-1-2002, the respondents 5 to 15 and their supporters have discontinued such activities with their mill and hence the mill is
running smoothly since 29-1-2002. The 4th respondent has provided all necessary bandobust and security arrangements for the smooth running of
the petitioner mill during the strike period.
On behalf of respondents 5 to 15, 5th respondent has filed an affidavit wherein it is stated that their Union has been espousing the cause of the
workmen in the petitioner Mills. They opposed the actions of the Management which amounted to unfair labour practice. The Management in
order to scuttle their Union suspended their Secretary on 7-1-2002 on charges which were both flimsy and vague. They went on strike from 8-1-
2002. The Management being unable to face the strike declared a lock-out on 16-1-2002. When their Union resorted to conciliation in the
presence of the Labour Officer, the Management did not participate in the talks. The management declared a partial lock-our on 22-1-2002. The
68 employees who were members of the CITU Union were prevented from attending work and all the other workers were allowed to attend duty
in their respective shifts; accordingly, they approached the Conciliation Officer, who by his advice dated 25-01-2002, directed the Management to
desist from such unfair labour practices. They proceeded to engage fresh hands. They also lodged a complaint with the police inventing law and
order problem. Finally, they approached this Court and obtained an ex parte interim direction. Even when the workers were on sit-in strike, they
did not resort to any violence and there was no loss or damage to either person or property. The management could have attended the conciliation
on 22-01-2002, if they were genuinely interested in maintaining good industrial relations instead of imposing partial lock- out on us.
With the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mill and Mr. N.G.R. Prasad for respondents 5
to 15.
The only point for consideration in this writ petition is whether Mandamus be issued to respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate police protection
to the petitioner Textiles Mill by preventing the respondents 5 to 15 and their associate workmen from interfering or preventing the working of the
Mill or for transportation and removal of raw material and finished goods to and from the petitioner Mill?
I have already narrated the case of the petitioner as well as workmen. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the workmen, by
drawing my attention to the fact that inasmuch as the management has imposed partial lock out and the same having been suppressed, no
Mandamus be issued to respondents 1 to 4. To this, Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the unreasonable
attitude of the workmen, the partial lock-out was declared only on 22-1-2002 that is, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. It is seen that this
writ petition was filed in this Court on 21-1-2002 and came up for admission on 23-1-2002. By pointing out the same, it is contended that it was
only because of this, the same could not be mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition; accordingly, there is no question of
suppression of material facts as claimed by the counsel for the workers. It is true that only after fling of the writ petition, the management declared
partial lock-out; hence I accept the contention that the question of suppression of material facts does not arise.
It is the case of the petitioner that the workmen-respondents 5 to 15 along with 57 other workmen went on illegal stay in strike on 8-1-2002.
The stay in strike continued upto 14-1-2002. Thereafter, from 16-2-2002, respondents 5 to 15 along with another 57 workmen went on an illegal
strike, did not report for work and instead they assembled in front of the petitioner Mill, raised slogans and prevented the majority of the willing
workmen from entering the mill for work, and also threatening them with dire consequence, if they went for work. It is also the case of the
petitioner that they also prevented the free ingress and egress of staff, finished goods and raw material to and from the mill. It is further stated that
in view of this, the mill was not able to run fully and great tension prevails in and around the petitioner''s campus.
On the other hand, it is the case of the Union that the management in order to scuttle their Union, suspended their Secretary on 7-1-2002 for
flimsy ground. Since the entire action was arbitrary, they went on strike from 8-1-2002. The strike was total The Management being unable to face
the strike, declared a lock-out on 16-1-2002. When their Union resorted to conciliation in the presence of the Labour Officer, the management
did not participate in the talks. They engaged fresh hands in the mills in the place of regular workers. The management declared partial lock out on
22-1-2002. The action of the management exposed lack of bonafides. There is no tension as suggested by the petitioner. Even when the workers
were on sit-in strike, they did not resort to any violence and there was no loss or damage to either person or property.
In a matter like this, particularly in a dispute between the management and the workers, normally the interference by this Court, exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited, since the aggrieved person has remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act.
However, it is the case of the management that respondents 5 to 15 and some few workmen organized illegal strike preventing loyal workers to
attending the mill and they even prevented the transport of finished goods from the factory premises. In this regard, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner has relied on certain decisions to show that this Court has ample power to issue Mandmus for police protection to safeguard the life and
safety of the loyal workmen and their property. In Writ Petition Nos. 5278 and 5445 of 1993 dated 31-3-1993 (Solidair India Ltd., v. State of
Tamil Nadu), K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J., in similar circumstance, after holding that no public interest is involved and only monetary interest is shown
right through the affidavit, dismissed the writ petition for police protection. However, at the end of his order, the learned Judge has made it clear
that if the petitioner-management files any complaint before the police-respondents, it is incumbent on the part of the police to register the same
and take appropriate action in law.
In K.S.M. Workers Union v. Kerala Spinners Ltd., reported in 1994 1 L.L.N. 384 a Division Bench of Kerala High Court has held that when
there have been acts of violence by workmen against the person and property of employer, management is entitled to police protection, Their
Lordships have held that State has solemn duty towards the citizens for the protection of their person and property. While considering similar
situation and power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Bench has held: (para 12 and 13)
12......All that the rulings state is that police protection orders should not be given by the High Court under Article 226 for the mere asking of it.
The discretion has to be soundly exercised. But, at the same time, when there have been acts of violence by workmen against the person and
property of the employer, if the police, to whom the employer has resorted to, do not give adequate and timely protection, the employer must have
a legal remedy to enforce his right to protection of his person and property. We are governed by the rule of law and the state has a solemn duty
towards its citizens for protection of their person and property. Whether any particular situation deserves grant of police protection from the Court,
it is for the Court to decide, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the past conduct of the workmen and the
reasonableness of the apprehension of the employer in regard to the likelihood of the recurrence of such conduct on the part of the workmen. It
cannot be said that, even in cases of proof of past violent conduct of the workmen, police protection to the employer if granted by Court, would tilt
the balance of bargaining power in favour of the management. If the rulings cited by the appellant lay down any such broad proposition, we
respectfully dissent from the same.
We may add that if in a case of violent acts or obstruction or gherao by the workers, the management is not granted protection, the balance of
the bargaining power may, indeed, tilt in favour of the workmen. It is the duty of the Court to see that peace is restored and parties are allowed to
come to the negotiation table, without the balance being tilted either way. We are of the view that grant of police protection to the management, if
the Court considers it to be necessary on the facts of a given case, only restores normalcy and cannot be said to put the management in any
advantageous position. The position between management and workmen is one of interdependence and it is the duty of the Court to see that one
party does not, by resort to lawful methods, such as gherao, obstruction or violence, compel the management to accede the terms which, but for
such compulsion, the management would not have acceded to.
In K.C.P. Ltd. Vs. Inspector of Police, Tiruvottiyur and others, K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J., considered similar question and the power of this
Court to issue such direction for police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution. By relying on a Division Bench decision in Coimbatore
Periyar District Motor Transport Munnetra Sangam (by President) v. Sivakumar Transports, Tirupur and others 99 L.W. 409 regarding protection
of the property and for removal of the articles mentioned in the schedule, he has held that "" I am of the view that they are (Inspector of Police,
Thiruvotriyur) duty bound to give protection for the removal of the articles mentioned in Schedules A and B in the petition.
In Audco India Ltd., v. Audco India Employees'' Union and others 1989-II-L.L.J. 200 M. Srinivasan (as he then was) held that workmen of
public utility service striking work without notice, have no right to prevent or obstruct other workmen, customers and others to have ingress to and
egress out of the factory, and also to prevent the movement of vehicles and raw materials and finished goods from and to factory for purpose of
processing.
These decisions would show that in certain circumstances, such as prevention of property and persons, this Court in appropriate case can issue
mandamus to the police authorities to give protection. Equally, I am of the view that the workmen are also entitled to air their grievance by
adopting so many methods within the frame work of the privileges given under the Industrial Disputes Act. Equally, it is made clear that they have
no right to obstruct the genuine workers and prevent the transport of goods into the factory and finished goods from the factory. Likewise, by
declaring partial lock-out, the petitioner management cannot dismiss the workmen without resorting to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
In the light of what is stated above, though the workmen are entitled to protection under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and show
their protest, if there is any violation of the provisions, undoubtedly, they have no right to prevent the genuine workmen from attending their work
and the transport of materials into the factory as well as finished goods from the factory. When there is reasonable apprehension that their property
is likely to be damaged and their action would prevent the other willing workmen to attend to the work, when a complaint is made by the
management, it is the duty of the police to provide adequate protection in order to restore peace. It is made further clear that in the guise of
keeping the police force, the management has no right to take action without reference to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court
also hopes that the dispute can be sorted out by way of negotiation/conciliation before the Labour Officer, and both parties are expected to follow
the same. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. The interim direction granted in WPMP No. 1128/2002 is closed. WVMP
No.216/2002 is closed.