The petitioners sought a writ for police protection regarding their closed tile factory amidst a pending industrial dispute. The court closed the petition upon recording undertakings from both the petitioners and respondent unions regarding conduct and factory management.
The writ petition is closed; no police protection granted; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1941
WP(C).No.1195 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
1 DR. RANJITH KRISHNAN S/O. DR.K.V.KRISHNAN, KANJUNNIVALAPPIL HOUSE, NANNAMUKKU P.O., CHANGARAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 DR. K.V. KRISHNAN, S/O. PANGU, KANJUNNIVALAPPIL HOUSE, NANNAMUKKU P.O., CHANGARAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3 VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O. DR.KRISHNAN, KANJUNNIVALAPPIL HOUSE, NANNAMUKKU P.O., CHANGARAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4 RAMESAN P., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O VASU MELECHOLAYIL HOUSE, VALLIKUNNU NORTH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU
WP(C).No.1195 of 2019 ..2..
RESPONDENT/S:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.1195 of 2019 ..3..
JUDGMENT
K.VINOD CHANDRAN,J.
The petitioners are the Managing partner
and partners of a firm, which was running a tile factory. The tile factory was closed. It is the petitioners' submission that the employees were all compensated as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, it is admitted that an industrial dispute is pending as I.D.No.33/2018 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode. The police protection was sought, since it was apprehended that there would be violence against the petitioners' premises and that they would be prevented from entering into the factory premises.
respondent Unions submits that there was
WP(C).No.1195 of 2019 ..4..
absolutely no threat levelled against anybody personally, nor was any obstruction carried out as alleged. It is the submission of the respondent Unions that, they only apprehended that the management would dismantle the factory and sell the property and the machineries, in which event, if the closure is found to be bad, they would be left with no remedies for recovery. The respondent Unions undertake that they would not cause any obstruction to the free ingress and egress into the factory premises.
of now, they do not have any intention to
sell the factory, the machinery or the properties. If at all they have any such intention, they would approach the Labour Court first and only then proceed with such
WP(C).No.1195 of 2019 ..5..
activity.
opinion that the writ petition can be closed, recording the undertaking of both the parties. If any violation of the
undertaking is carried out by either of the parties, the other party can approach the
appropriate forum.
The writ petition is closed. No costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
SB/02/08/2019
WP(C).No.1195 of 2019 ..6..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE FIRST PETITI |
NOTICE OF CLOSURE ISSUED ONER DATED,31/01/2017. |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE | NOTICE ISSUED TO THE |
| LABOUR COMMISSION | ER,THE DISTRICT LABOUR | |
| OFFICER AND THE RE 19/12/2016. |
SPONDENTS 3 TO 5 DATED, | |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER |
NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DATED, 04/10/2017. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE N JOINT LABOUR 07/10/2017. |
OTICE ISSUED BY REGIONAL COMMISSIONER DATED, |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE BETWEEN THE FIRST P UNION DATED, 01/11/ |
AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ETITIONER AND ONE OF THE 2018. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE THIS HON'BLE COURT DT, 28/06/2017. |
INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY IN W.P.(C)NO.21259/2017 |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE | REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED |
| BY THE FIRST PET RESPONDENT DATED, 2 |
ITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST 8/11/2018. |
|
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE | REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED |
| BY THE FIRST PETIT | IONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE | |
| INSPECTOR OF P 28/11/2018. |
OLICE, NALLAM DATED, | |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE | ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED |
| FROM THE OFFICE DATED, 28/11/2018. |
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
RESPONDENTS EXTS:
// TRUE COPY //
P.A TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition requesting police protection is maintainable when the parties have agreed to abide by industrial tribunal proceedings and unions have given an undertaking not to obstruct pre
Dr. Ranjith Krishnan and others
The District Police Chief, Kozhikode and others
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
V. G. ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
