Remanded

United Spirits Ltd. v. Dy.Superintendent of Police and Others

Kerala HC16 Jul 2010WP(C)/13119/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought police protection for a liquor company against strikes and demonstrations by a fishermen's union. The court, noting the presence of an agreement and directions from the district collector, disposed of the petition by ordering a meeting between parties before the District Collector to resolve the dispute, with continued police protection pending the outcome.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; parties to meet District Collector on 03.08.2010; police protection directed until decision taken.

United Spirits Ltd. Vs Dy.Superintendent of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13119 of 2010(L)

¶4

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ---------------------

¶6

UNITED SPIRITS LTD,VARANAD,CHERTHALA,REP BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER,PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATION, SHRI.K.K.SASIDHARAN.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

¶10

THE DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA.

¶11

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CHERTHALA.

¶12

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CHERTHALA.

¶13

DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,ALAPPUZHA.

¶15

DEEVARA SAMYUKTHA SAMARASAMITHI, CHERTHALA TALUK OFFICE,C.M.C-3,CHERTHALA-688 524, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN,SHRI.A.M.SHANMUGHAN.

¶16

MR.A.M.SHANMUGHAN,MEENATHERIL, MANAPPURAM.P.O,CHERTHALA.

¶17

MR.N.R.SHAJI,PUTHUVALNIKATH,VAYALAR.PO, CHERTHALA.

¶18

MR.K.S.BAHULEYAN,KODAPPANATHARA, CHANDIROOR.P.O,CHERTHALA.

¶19

ADDL.10 RAVISANKAR DAS D., AGED 25, S/O.N.R. DINESAN, SECRETARY, AKHILA KERALA DHEEVARA SABHA, KARAYOGAM NO.7, VARANAD NIKARTHIL HOUSE, VARANAD P.O., CHERTHALA.

¶20

W.P.(C).NO.13119 OF 2010 L

¶21

ADDL. 11.	T.K. KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 58, S/O. KRISHNAN, COMMITTEE MEMBER, AKDS, KARAYOGAM NO.33, THOTTUCHIRA PUTHENNIKARTH HOUSE, THIRUNELLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA.
ADDL.12.	K.P. SOMAN, AGED 47, S/O. PURUSHAN, SECRETARY, KATTACHIRA CLAMS WORKERS' WELFARE FORUM, VARANAD P.O., PULLOOTTI NIKARTH HOUSE, VARANAD P.O., CHERTHALA.
ADDL.13	A.M. SHANMUGHAN, AGED 57, S/O. AYYAPPAN, PRESIDENT, AKDS KARAYOGAM NO.30, MANAPPURAM, MEENATHERIL HOUSE, MANAPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA.
ADDL.14	P.M. BABU, AGED 46, S/O. MADHAVAN, PRESIDENT, AKDS, KARAYOGAM NO.29, POOCHAKKAL, PADAVUNKAL HOUSE, POOCHAKKAL P.O., CHERTHALA.
ADDL.15	S. HARIDAS, AGED 50, S/O. SANKU, EXECUTIVE MEMBER, REPRESENTING AKDS, KARAYOGAM NO.8, NEDUMBRAKKAD, PUTHUVAL NIKARTH HOUSE, CMC IV, CHERTHALA P.O.
ADDL.16 (ADD	M. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 59, S/O. MADHAVAN, PRESIDENT AKDS, KARAYOGAM NO.6, THANNEERMUKKAM, PUTHUMANNEL HOUSE, THANNEERMUKKAM P.O., THANNEERMUKKAM. L.R10 TO R16 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 9.6.2010 IN I.A.NO.7267/2010).

¶22

R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS.

¶23

R6 TO R8 & ADDL.R10 TO R16 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.13119 OF 2010 L

¶26

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 7.04.2010 TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT NO.F.3979/2001 DT. 9.11.2001.

¶29

EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT NO.N5.22790/2001 DT. 25/5/2004.

¶30

EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT FROM THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DT. 01/01/2009.

¶31

EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 17/5/04 IN WP(C).NO.13627/04 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶32

EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER DATED 23/3/2010.

¶33

EXT.P7TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT. 8/4/2010 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SI OF POLICE, CHERTHALA.

¶34

EXT.P8TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P7.

¶35

EXT.P9TRUE COPY OF DEMAND LETTER ISSUED BY SNDP DT. 27/2/10.

¶36

EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND LETTER ISSUED BY KPMS DT. 10/2/10.

¶37

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXT.R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST FURNISHED TO THE SABHA GIVING DETAILS OF THE APPOINTMENTS MADE IN THE COMPANY PURSUANT TO EXT.P1 IN 2001.

¶39

EXT.R6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.4.2010 MADE BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE COMPANY.

¶40

EXT.R6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM IN MATHRUBHOOMY DAILY DATED 25.5.2010.

¶41

// True Copy //

¶42

PS to Judge

¶43

K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶44

W.P(C). NO. 13119 OF 2010 L --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 16^th July, 2010

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

K.M. Joseph, J.

¶47

Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:

¶48

“Issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 for adequate police protection to be given to the Company on so that the strike or dharna/satyagraham will not lead to blocking of the entry/exit of the Company and also adequate protection be given to the employees who come to the Company for work and to vehicles belonging to the Company.”

¶49

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶50

Petitioner is a Company employing approximately one

¶51

thousand persons engaged in the production of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and allied products. Going by the cause title, the sixth respondent is the Deevara Samyuktha Samarasamithi and

¶52

WPC.NO.13119/2010 L 2

¶53

respondents 7 to 9, according to the representation of the learned counsel, are the Patron, Convenor and Chairman respectively. It is common case that respondents 7 to 9 are members of the Akhila Kerala Deevara Sabha. Additional respondents 10 to 16 are impleaded on their own motion. It is stated that there are several strikes and Satyagrahas by the Deevara Sabha alleging pollution. There was a conciliation meeting and a decision was arrived at. Ext.P2 is the copy of the Agreement. Similar meeting was called for in 2004. Ext.P3 is the copy of the Agreement. Ext.P4 is the consent by the Pollution Control Board. Petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.13627/2004. Ext.P5 is the Judgment therein. Allegations are made in paragraph 6 essentially that the Company is adhering to the settlements in letter and spirit. The Company got reliable information recently that persons nominated by respondents 5 onwards for filling up twenty per cent vacancies are picked up against payments to respondents 5 onwards. The persons nominated are also not suitable for the work. The

¶54

WPC.NO.13119/2010 L 3

¶55

Company has the right to employ appropriate persons. The only liability of the Company is that those persons should belong to the fisherman community. The Company is not violating its obligations. Petitioner filed Ext.P6 complaint. Petitioner also filed Ext.P7 complaint.

¶56

Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 6 to 8 and it is submitted that the other party respondents have adopted it. Exts.R6(a) and R6(b) are produced. Ext.R6(a) is a copy of the list furnished to the Sabha and Ext.R6(b) is a letter made to the Company. According to them, the Company committed breach of Exts.P2 and P3 conditions. It is also stated that the Company has stopped use of Molasis for quite some time now. It is stated that a letter was given to the Company withdrawing the call for strike.

¶57

A Reply Affidavit is filed to which a Rejoinder Affidavit also is filed. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the learned Government Pleader.

¶58

WPC.NO.13119/2010 L

¶59

¶60

Learned counsel for the party respondents would submit that in view of the fact that there is a case that Exts.P2 and P3 have been violated by the Company and in view of Ext.P6 communication whereby notice is given that a meeting will be held in the Office of the District Collector, the matter may be considered by the District Collector with notice to the parties. Learned Government Pleader also supports that such a decision can be taken by the District Collector.

¶61

In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:

¶62

The petitioner or its representative and respondents 6 to 16 or their representatives shall be present before the fourth respondent District Collector at 11 A.M. on 03.08.2010. The District Collector shall proceed to hear them and take a decision and communicate the same to them within a period of one month from the date on which the parties are heard in full. It is submitted by Shri P.K. Ibrahim, learned counsel appearing for the party respondents that the call for strike has been withdrawn

¶63

WPC.NO.13119/2010 L 5

¶64

and there will be no obstruction in the operation of the Company. However, in case there is any threat or obstruction by respondents 6 to 16 and brought to the notice of respondents 1 to 3 by the petitioner, the said respondents shall give adequate protection so that there will be no blocking of the entry/exit of the Company and the employees coming to the Company and to the vehicles belonging to the Company. This order will

¶65

continue till a decision is taken by the District Collector.

¶66

Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶67

Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy //

¶68

PS to Judge

United Spirits Ltd. v. Dy.Superintendent of Police and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United Spirits Ltd. v. Dy.Superintendent of Police and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariyamma George Vs Dist. Superintendent of Police & Others

Joseph Vs Superintendent of Police,Kollam & Ors.

Abdul Kareem Vs the State of Kerala & Others

Kumary Joshy Vs State of Kerala

Gouri.B & Another Vs Superintendent of Police, Kollam & Ors.

Bhagheerathan Vs the District Superintendent of Police