Allowed

Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Mills v. Thrissur District Textile Mazdoor Sangha

Kerala HC10 Jun 2011WP(C)/13787/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court made an interim order directing respondents (police officials) to afford protection for willing workers absolute. It clarified that \"willing workers\" includes all employee categories and affirmed this protection does not affect lawful right to strike.

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated 23.5.2011 directing police protection for willing workers is made absolute with the clarification that willing workers include all categories of employees including staff, with

Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Mills Vs Thrissur District… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 13787 of 2011(W)

¶6

----------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

--------------------

¶9

ALAGAPPA TEXTILES (COCHIN) MILLS, ALAGAPPA NAGAR, THRISSUR-680301, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

1. THRISSUR DISTRICT TEXTILE MAZDOOR SANGHAM (ALAGAPPA TEXTILE UNIT), ALAGAPPA NAGAR P.O., THRISSUR-680301, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.

¶14

2. ALAGAPPA TEXITLES EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU), ALAGAPPA NAGAR P.O., THRISSUR-680301 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.

¶15

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR, PIN-680001.

¶16

4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR-680301.

¶17

5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR-680301.

¶18

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN R3 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

tss

¶21

W.P.(C) NO.14787/2011

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

P1:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT. 25.2.2011 IN WPC. 1158/2011.

¶25

P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24.3.2011 IN WPC. 1158/2011.

¶26

P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30.3.2011 FROM INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS AND THE ENCLOSED NOTICE.

¶27

P4:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 18.4.2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶28

P5:- COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DTD. 7.5.2011 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE TRADE UNION & THE PETITIONER.

¶29

P6:- REPRESENTATION DTD. 9.5.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5.

¶30

P7:- COPY OF THE WALL-POST DISPLAYED AT THE INSTANCE OF RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.

¶31

P8:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 19.5.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5.

¶32

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶33

R1(a):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DISCUSSION HELD ON 7.5.2011 IN THE PRESENCE OF REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)KOCHI.

¶34

R1(b):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23.5.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT 1 & 2 BEFORE THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE PETITIONER.

¶35

R1(c):- COPY OF THE MASS MEMORANDUM DT. 18.5.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE WORKERS TO THE MANAGEMENT.

¶36

R1(d):- COPY OF THE NOTICE CIRCULATED BY INTUC -AITUC-INTUC UNIONS.

¶37

RR1(e):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE WOMEN WORKERS TO THE RESPONDENT UNION.

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶42

W.P.(C).NO.13787 OF 2011

¶43

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2011.

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

Basant, J:

¶46

Petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 3 to 5 to afford police protection for the petitioner for the uninterrupted and peaceful running of the establishment - Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Mills. Respondents

¶47

1 and 2 are trade unions of workers in the establishment.

¶48

When the matter came up for hearing on 23.5.2011 an interim order was passed:

¶49

“directing respondents 3 to 5 to afford adequate police protection for the willing workers for egress and ingress to the factory of the petitioner”.

¶50

The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2

¶51

submits that the workmen are on legal strike. They have the legal right to strike work and protest against the policy of the management. They have no intention whatsoever to obstruct the peaceful running of the Mill. In these circumstances there may not be any fetter against their right to protest and the right to strike work; it is the only

¶52

W.P.(C).NO.13787 OF 2011

¶53

: 2 :

¶54

prayer of the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

¶55

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied if the interim order dated 23.5.2011 is made absolute with the clarification that willing workers would include all category of workmen and managerial personnel including the members of the staff. That evidently was the intention when the interim order was passed. We are satisfied that the interim order can now be made absolute.

¶56

In the result:

¶57

a. This petition is allowed.

¶58

b. The interim order dated 23.5.2011 extracted above is

¶59

made absolute with the assertion that willing workers would include all categories of employees including members of the staff.

¶60

c. Needless to say that this order of police protection shall not in any way affect the rights of respondents 1 and 2 to strike work and organize protest in accordance with law without interfering with the work of the Mills.

¶61

Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE.

¶62

Sd/=

¶63

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.

¶64

Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Mills v. Thrissur District Textile Mazdoor Sangha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Mills v. Thrissur District Textile Mazdoor Sangha

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

Arun Ramachandran Nair Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Jose Kolencherry Vs the Director General of Police

Vijayakumari Vs Superintendent of Police

Krishnakumar.G. Vs Union of India

Shanthakumariamma Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Mohamed Yoonus Vs Superintendent of Police