Dismissed

United Breweries Limited v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Aug 2017WP(C)/15286/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought directions to the State Police and trade unions to prevent obstruction to factory operations and declarations that on-call contract workers acted illegally. Converting the interim order into a permanent one, the Court dismissed the writ petition and closed it, noting no present law and order threat. Relief was granted to ensure protection for the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The interim order was made absolute, directing respondents to afford protection and ensure free ingress/egress, subject to no current law and order threat. Petitioner otherwise carried the burden of p

United Breweries Limited Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/16TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶4

WP(C).No. 15286 of 2017 (I) ----------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED KANJIKODE WEST P.O., PALAKKAD-678623, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MR.MADHU S. 2. MADHU S. GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED, KANJIKODE WEST P.O., PALAKKAD-678623.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶10

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KASBA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-678623.

¶11

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KASBA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-678623.

¶12

PALAKKAD DISTRICT ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES MAZDOOR SANGAM REG.NO.219/85 (AFFILIATED TO BHARATHIYA MAZDOOR SANGAM), BMS OFFICE, HARIKKARA STREET, PALAKKAD-678001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, VIPIN V.

¶13

PREMIER BREWERIES CONTRACT WORKERS ASSOCIATION (INTUC) KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD-678623, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, MR.V.SASEENDRAN.

¶14

PALAKKAD THALUK ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU), REG.NO.09-08/2002, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD-678623. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, MR.ANILKUMAR K.C.

¶15

WP(C).No. 15286 of 2017 (I)

¶16

M/S.STERLING ENTERPRISES

¶17

1ST FLOOR, GERMAN PLAZA, HPO ROAD, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶18

DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER PALAKKAD-678001.

¶19

R1 TO R3 AND R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 15286 of 2017 (I)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 01-04-2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-1-2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21-04-2017 TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 28-04-2017. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.NO.22130 OF 2011.

¶24

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

¶25

/TRUE COPY/

¶26

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶27

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V, JJ.

¶28

W.P.(C)No.15286 OF 2017

¶29

Dated this the 7^th August , 2017

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶32

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶33

prayers:

¶34

“ i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents 2 & 3 to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner to enable the petitioners and its willing employees to run the factory and work there in a smooth manner without any obstruction by respondents 4 to 6 or their members or anybody on their behalf and also to ensure free ingress and aggress of the willing employees, trainees, executives, materials, machinery and vehicles to and from the factory premises and not to conduct any Dharna or demonstration or construct any temporary shed anywhere in the radius of 200 metres from the entrance of the factory.

¶35

ii) to declare the action of respondents 5 & 6 being contract workers engaged purely on a need basis causing obstruction to smooth functioning of factory as illegal and unjustifiable.

¶36

iii) to restrain the respondents 5 & 6 , its

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C)No.15286 OF 2017

¶39

members and men on their behalf from causing obstructions to the entry of willing employees, trainees and vehicles to and from the factory premises.

¶40

iv) grant such other and incidental reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and necessary on the facts and circumstances of this case; and

¶41

v) allow this writ petition with costs to the petitioner.”

¶42

2. At the time of filing the writ petition itself, an interim

¶43

order was also sought for, which is in the following lines:

¶44

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying writ petition and affidavit, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct respondents 2 & 3 to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner to enable the petitioners to run the factory and work therein in a smooth manner without any obstruction and also to ensure free ingress and aggress of the willing employees, materials, machinery and vehicles to and from the factory premises and not to conduct any Dharna or demonstration or construct any temporary shed anywhere in the radius of 200 meters from the entrance of the factory pending disposal of this writ petition. “

¶45

When the matter came up for consideration on 05.05.2017, this Court, while ordering notice to the concerned respondents, also passed an interim order as sought for, which was subsequently

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C)No.15286 OF 2017

¶48

extended from time to time. Despite completion of service of

¶49

notice, the party respondents have not chosen to appear before this Court .

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State.

¶51

It is submitted on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 by the learned Government Pleader that as on today, there is no threat to the law and order situation. In view of the fact that the pleadings raised by the petitioner in the writ petition have not been controverted by the party respondents and in view of the nature of grievance projected and the interim order already passed, we find it appropriate to make the interim order absolute. It is ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands closed.

¶52

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶53

SHIRCY V, JUDGE

¶54

United Breweries Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United Breweries Limited v. State of Kerala

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

The District Officer, Public Service Commission Vs Asha Devi L.

Divya K.K. Vs Secretary, PWD

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Directof for Local Fund Accounts

Janardhanan.a.T Vs the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswaom Board

Abdul Razak.K Vs the Administrator of Lakshadweep

Remjith. E.R Vs Vipin Kumar v