Allowed

Binu John v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Kerala HC24 Mar 2014WP(C)/4800/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a dispute regarding a strike obstructing a cashew factory, the Court directed the police to ensure free ingress and egress to the petitioner's factory and prevent obstruction by agitating workers, while noting service disputes are for competent authorities.

What did the court decide?

Directed police authorities to ensure free ingress and egress to the factory and prevent obstruction by respondents 5-11.

Binu John Vs the Circle Inspector of Police — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/3RD CHAITHRA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 4800 of 2014 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

BINU JOHN PROPRIETOR, BABY CASHEW FACTORY, PORUVAZHY P.O. PANAMPETTY, BHARANIKAVU, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN

¶9

SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR SMT.AMBILY K. ARAVIND

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SASTHAMCOTTAH, KOLLAM-690 521.

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SASTHAMCOTTAH, KOLLAM-690 521.

¶13

3. SRI. G. PRADEEP SECRETARY, KALLADA KASUVANDI THOZHILALI COUNCIL (AITUC) RR BHAVAN, BHARANICAVU, SASTHAMCOTTAH-690 521.

¶14

4. SRI. RAHIM SECRETARY

¶15

KERALA KASUVANDI THOZHILALI COUNCIL (INTUC) PORUVAZHY, BHARANICAVU-690 520..

¶16

5. SMT. SUDHARMA

¶17

WORKER, BABY CASHEW FACTORY, PARAVILA VADAKETHIL PANAPETTY, PORUVAZHI P.O.-690 520.

¶18

6. SMT. USHAKUMARI

¶19

WORKER, BABY CASHEW FACTORY, REVATHI BHAVAN PANAPETTY, PORUVAZHI P.O.-690 520.

¶20

7. SMT. REHMATH

¶21

WORKER, BABY CASHEW FACTORY, PUTHENVEIL THEKETHIL KAMPEDY, PORUVAZHI P.O.-690 520

¶22

...2/-

¶23

WP(C).No. 4800 of 2014 (Y) -2-

¶24

8. SMT. JAYASREE WORKER, BABY CASHEW FACTORY, PUTHENVILAYIL PANAPETTY, PORUVAZHI P.O.-690 520. 9. SMT. BINDU WORKER, BABY CASHEW FACTORY, UMESHS BHAVANAM INCHAKKADU, KAKKAKUNNU P.O.-690 511 10. SMT. SAROJINI WORKER, BABY CASHEW FACTORY, KAIPILLY VEEDU PANAPETTY, PORUVAZHI P.O.-690 520. 11. SMT. MOLY WORKER, BABY CASHEW FACTORY, BEENA BHAVANAM PANAPETTY, PORUVAZHI P.O.-690 520 R1 & R2 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SUJITH MATHEW JOSE R4 BY ADV. SRI.SOORANAD S. SREEKUMAR R5 TO R11 BY ADVS. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS SMT.REJITHA RAJAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

...2/-

¶27

WP(C).No. 4800 of 2014 (Y)

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶30

EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT PETITION DATED 10/2/2014 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(a). ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------------------------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J.

¶36

¶37

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶38

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c) No.4800 of 2014

¶39

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2014

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

Shaffique,J

¶42

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶43

“i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner, and his staff and willing workers to enter the factory and carry on processing of raw cashew nuts in the cashew factory bearing No.CHW/CHR/11/466/2000 without any obstruction from respondents 5 to 11 and their men/ associates;

¶44

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner, and his staff and willing workers and also for taking raw cashew nuts to the factory and to take out processed and semi processed cashew kernels out of the factory for completing the processing and packing in the petitioners packing centre at Karippuram, Kundara and also for export without any obstruction by the respondents 5 to 11 their men/ associates;

¶45

iii) to declare that the striking workers have no manner of right to prevent ingress and egress to the factory for the petitioner, his staff and willing workers and also for vehicular traffic to and from the factory.”

¶46

W.P.(c) No.4800 of 2014

¶47

¶48

By an interim order dated 26.02.2014, we have directed the police authorities to provide protection for shifting the finished products to the packing unit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, conciliation is pending before the District Labour Officer. The dispute involved is with reference to employment or otherwise of 7 workers. They have called for a strike and they and their men are now obstructing the functioning of the Unit.

¶49

Learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that they have made enquiries and it was understood that the striking workers may block the entry to the unit and prevent the functioning, if the petitioner starts operating the unit.

¶50

If at all there is any dispute the workers have with reference to their employment and other service conditions, it is open for them to approach competent authorities to resolve such disputes. True that, they can also conduct necessary agitation or demonstration, but the same should not be in a manner to prevent operation or functioning of the unit in question.

¶51

If the agitating workers prevent the functioning of the unit, as alleged by the petitioner, and take law into their own

¶52

¶53

W.P.(c) No.4800 of 2014

¶54

hands, the police has the duty to see that no such obstruction is caused in the functioning of the unit in question. It has to be ensured that the willing workers, their employees, staff, customers, vehicles etc. are not prevented from having ingress and egress to the factory premises.

¶55

Under these circumstances, we are of the view this writ petition can be disposed of as under:-

¶56

Police authorities shall ensure free ingress and egress to the factory of the petitioner, his staff, workers, customers, other men and vehicles and shall ensure that the party respondents shall not create any obstruction or law and order situation in the functioning of the unit.

¶57

MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶58

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶59

Binu John v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binu John v. the Circle Inspector of Police

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

K.T.Shaji Vs the State of Kerala

P.M.Mahinkutty Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Abdulla Vs the Director General of Police

Confederation of Consumer Vigilance Cent Vs B.Jayaram

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Fancy Textile Traders

Stephen Kuncheria Vs Sub Inspector of Police