Disposed

Air India Sats Airport Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Sept 2020WP(C)/11645/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala upheld the right of an employer company to seek police protection against obstruction by trade union members during an industrial dispute. The Court clarified that while the right to strike is recognized, it must be peaceful, and police must act to ensure free movement and safety of workers and property without hindrance.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed by permitting the petitioner to approach Station House Officers for police protection if obstruction occurs; directed authorities to act without delay upon such request.

Air India Sats Airport Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

W.P.(C)No.11645 OF 2020(E)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 AIR INDIA SATS AIRPORT SERVICES PVT. LTD. 1ST FLOOR PANCHAMOOTIL SQUARE, ENCHAKKAL JUNCTION, VALLAKADAVU POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER IR MRS.DEEPA RADHIKA.

¶8

2 DEEPA RADHIKA IR MANAGER, AIR INDIA SATS AIRPORT SERVICES PVT.LTD., 1ST FLOOR PANCHAMOOTIL SQUARE, ENCHAKKAL JUNCTION, VALLAKADAVU POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH ABEL TOM BENNY JYOTHISH KRISHNA MEENAKSHY S DEV

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶12

2 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE POLICE GROUND, CV RAMAN PILLAI RD, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014.

¶13

3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER FORT POLICE STATION, ATTAKULANGARA, TRIVANDRUM VIZHINJAM RD., NEAR VANITHA JAIL, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 023.

¶14

4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER VALLIYATHURA POLICE STATION, PALAYAM AIRPORT RD., SHANGUMUKHAM, KANNANTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695008.

¶15

W.P.(C)No.11645 of 2020(E) 2

¶16

5 KERALA PRADESH AIRPORT CASUAL MAZDOOR SANGHAM (BMS)

¶17

REG.NO.I/13/2010, MAZDOOR BHAVAN, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.

¶18

6 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC AIRPORT CONTRACT WORKERS' UNION (CITU) REG.NO.01/15/2003, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.

¶19

7 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AIRPORT CONTRACT LABOURERS' UNION INTUC (I) T.C.34/1577, “GOLDEN”, KOCHUTHOPE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS WORKING PRESIDENT.

¶20

8 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT STAFF & WORKERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (INTUC) REG.NO.TU/18974/17, LEELA SHELTERS, PUNNEN ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS WORKING PRESIDENT.

¶21

9 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AIRPORT LABOURERS UNION INTUC TC 36/1630(2), FERNY VILLA, USC ROAD, NEAR DOMESTIC AIRPORT, VALLAKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS WORKING PRESIDENT.

¶22

10 REGIOANL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), RAMA NILAYAM, T.C.25/3453, UPPALAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶23

R5 BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA R5 BY ADV. SRI ANIL KUMAR R10 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R1 TO R4 BY SRI P.P.THAJUDHEEN, SR. GOVT. PLEADER

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

W.P.(C)No.11645 of 2020(E) 3

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The 1^st petitioner company is a service provider for ground handling for various airlines at Trivandrum International and

¶28

Domestic Airport and the 2^nd petitioner is its Manager-IR. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 4 to afford adequate and effective protection for smooth functioning of the offices of the 1^st petitioner company at Trivandrum International Airport and at Panchamootil Square (1^st Floor), Enchakkal Junction, Vallakadavu, by ensuring smooth functioning of the said offices, without any disturbance, hindrance, obstruction or threat from respondents 5 to 9 or any other persons on their behalf. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 4 not to allow respondents 5 to 9 or any other persons on their behalf to conduct any agitation, dharna, slogan shouting, obstruction or any other action that affects the smooth functioning of the office of the 1^st petitioner company at Enchakkal Junction and also at Trivandrum International Airport, within 300 mts of the premises of the respective offices.

¶29

W.P.(C)No.11645 of 2020(E) 4

¶30

Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner company engaged workers on contract basis for fixed term for execution of various works at the airport and most of the workers are members of respondents 5 to 9 trade unions. In view of the financial crisis and also the drastic reduction in business, the management was compelled to go for manpower restructuring and as a result of which, the contracts of some of the employees could not be renewed after the expiry of the period of the contract. Challenging the same, the 5^th respondent trade union filed Ext.P1 complaint dated 26.05.2020 before the 10^th respondent Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), requesting interference and conciliation of the industrial dispute with the management. The 10^th respondent issued Ext.P2 notice dated 02.06.2020 to hold conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 09.06.2020, with a view to enquire and settle the matter amicably. On receipt of Ext.P2, the 1^st petitioner company requested the 10^th respondent to fix another date after 15.06.2020 for conciliation. On 28.05.2020, at about 11.00 am, about 25 contract workers, who are members of the 5^th respondent trade union, assembled in front of the office of the 1^st petitioner company at Enchakkal Junction, shouted slogans, obstructed entry of staff

¶31

W.P.(C)No.11645 of 2020(E) 5

¶32

and other willing workers into the premises. The dharna continued for an hour in front of the office at Enchakkal Junction. Before dispersing, the members of the 5^th respondent trade union verbally warned the officers and employees of the company that they will conduct severe agitations and disrupt the operations of the company at its both offices, i.e., the offices at Enchakkal Junction and Trivandrum International Airport. The 1^st petitioner company approached the 4^th respondent Station House Officer, Valiyathura Police Station, on 08.06.2020, through Ext.P3 e-mail, against respondents 5 to 9 trade unions, seeking adequate and effective Police protection for its officers, staff and property, so that its operations and also free movements of employees, customers, visitors and vehicles are not hindered. The 1^st petitioner company approached the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer, Fort Police Station, on 09.06.2020, through Ext.P4 e-mail, with copy to the 2^nd respondent Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, against respondents 5 to 9 trade unions, seeking adequate and effective Police protection for its officers, staff and property, so that its operations and also free movements of employees, customers, visitors and vehicles are not hindered. Alleging inaction on the part of respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner have approached this Court in

¶33

W.P.(C)No.11645 of 2020(E) 6

¶34

this writ petition, seeking various reliefs.

¶35

On 15.06.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice before admission to the respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India took notice for the 10^th respondent. The petitioners were directed to take out notice to respondents 5 to 9. This Court granted an interim order on 15.06.2020, which reads thus:

¶36

“There will be a direction to respondents 2 and 4 to afford adequate and effective police protection for smooth functioning of the offices and for the staff and property of the first petitioner company's office at 1^st Floor Panchamootil Square, Enchakkal Junction, Trivandrum and at the Trivandrum International Airport and to ensure free ingress and egress of the employees, vehicles, etc. without any disturbance, hindrance, obstruction or threat from respondents 5 to 9 and further to ensure that no dharna, agitation of any sort or any other illegal activity committed by respondents 5 to 9 or any other person/persons on their behalf within a radius of 300 metres of the Trivandrum International Airport and office of the petitioner at Enchakkal, pending disposal of this writ petition. The learned Government Pleader shall communicate the gist of this order to respondents 1 to 4, for immediate action.”

¶37

On 03.07.2020, this Court admitted the matter on file

¶38

and the respondents were directed to file counter affidavit. This

¶39

W.P.(C)No.11645 of 2020(E) 7

¶40

Court listed the matter on 13.07.2020 for further consideration and the interim order was also extended till then. Thereafter, on 13.07.2020, the said interim order was extended until further orders.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent and also the Assistant Solicitor General of India for the 10^th respondent. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 6 to 9.

¶42

The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation, powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter II of the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of the Act deals with general duties of Police. As per Section 3, the Police, as a service functioning category among the people as part of the administrative system shall, subject to the Constitution of India and the laws enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and protection of human rights. Section 4 of

¶43

W.P.(C)No.11645 of 2020(E) 8

¶44

the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance with the law.

¶45

7. Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian

¶46

Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus;

¶47

"In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, well-trained and well-disciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice.

¶48

The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants."

¶49

In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary

¶50

[(2014) 2 SCC 532] the Apex Court held that, one of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the

¶51

W.P.(C)No.11645 of 2020(E) 9

¶52

important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in Ankush Maruti

¶53

Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470] .

¶54

In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha [(1980) 2 SCC 593] the Apex Court held that, the right to unionise, the right to strike as part of collective bargaining and subject to the legality and humanity of the situation, the right of the weaker group viz. labour, to pressure the stronger party viz. capital, to negotiate and render justice, are processes recognised by industrial jurisprudence and supported by Social Justice. While society itself, in its basic needs of existence, may not be held to ransom in the name of the right to bargain and strikers must obey civilised norms in the battle and not be vulgar or violent hoodlums industry, represented by intransigent Managements, may well be made to reel into reason by the strike weapon and cannot then sequeal or wail and complain of loss of profits or other ill-effects but must negotiate or get a reference made. The broad basis is that workers are weaker although they are the producers and their struggle to better their lot has the sanction of the rule of law. Unions and strikers are no more

¶55

W.P.(C)No.11645 of 2020(E) 10

¶56

conspiracies than professions and political parties, are, and being far weaker, need succour. Part IV of the Constitution, read with Article 19, sows the seed of this burgeoning jurisprudence. The Gandhian quote at the beginning of the judgment [Para.5 @ Page 603 SCC] sets the tone of economic equity in industry. Of course, adventurist, extremist, extraneously inspired and puerile strike, absurdly insane persistence and violent or scorched earth policies boomerang and are anathema for the law. Within these parameters the right to strike is integral to collective bargaining.

¶57

In Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998 (2)

¶58

KLT 732] , in the context of the Section 21 of of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 and Rule 15 of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, which deals with settlement of disputes, a Full Bench of this Court held that, the Act and the Rules provide for a machinery for settlement of disputes between the employer and the worker. In the normal course, the dispute between the employer and the headload workers employed by him are to be settled in accordance with the machinery thus provided under the Statute, just like in the case of any other labour dispute being settled in accordance with the provisions contained under the relevant Statutes. But the fact that there is a machinery provided

¶59

W.P.(C)No.11645 of 2020(E) 11

¶60

under the Act to settle the disputes between the parties cannot stand in the way of the employer seeking police protection when there is a law and order problem. When such an employer approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection of person and property of the employer as well as willing workers, this Court will be justified in granting direction to the police to give protection, if circumstances so warrant. One such consideration can be irreparable injury that would be suffered by the employer and/or the willing workers. There may be other circumstances also which would justify grant of such direction in the facts of a particular case.

¶61

In the instant case, the petitioner company engaged workers on contract basis, most of whom are members of respondents 5 to 9 trade unions, for execution of various works at Trivandrum International and Domestic Airport. The contracts of some of the employees are not renewed after the expiry of the period of the contract, which, according to the petitioners, was on account of manpower restructuring, in view of the financial crisis and drastic reduction in business. Challenging the non-renewal of the contract of certain workers, 5^th respondent trade union filed Ext.P1 complaint dated 26.05.2020 before the 10^th respondent

¶62

W.P.(C)No.11645 of 2020(E) 12

¶63

Regional Labour Commissioner, based on which the said respondent issued Ext.P2 notice dated 02.06.2020 to hold conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, with a view to enquire and settle the matter amicably. Going by the averments in the writ petition, on 28.05.2020, at about 11.00 am, about 25 contract workers, who are members of the 5^th respondent trade union, assembled in front of the office of the 1^st petitioner company at Enchakkal Junction, shouted slogans, obstructed entry of staff and other willing workers into the premises. The dharna continued for an hour and before dispersing, the members of the 5^th respondent trade union verbally warned the officers and employees of the company that they will conduct severe agitations and disrupt the operations of the company at its offices at Enchakkal Junction and Trivandrum International Airport. The petitioner company approached respondents 2 to 4, through Exts P3 and P4 e-mails, against respondents 5 to 9 trade unions, seeking adequate and effective police protection for its officers, staff and property, so that its operations and also free movements of employees, customers, visitors and vehicles are not hindered.

¶64

The members of respondents 5 to 9 trade unions can certainly resort to strike as one of the modes of recognised form of

¶65

W.P.(C)No.11645 of 2020(E) 13

¶66

expression. The right of strike as part of collective bargaining is recognised in law only so long as it is peaceful. The striking workers must obey civilised norms in the battle and they cannot be permitted to take law into their own hands. They should desist from using vulgar and intimidating language. They have no legal right to obstruct ingress and egress of the officers, staff, customers and also the willing workers of the 1^st petitioner company or to cause any damage to its property. When there are acts of violence by the striking workers, the Management is entitled to adequate and effective police protection. An order for police protection cannot be claimed to frustrate and thwart the attempt of the workers and their trade unions to raise an industrial dispute or the competent authority in holding conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act for amicable settlement of that dispute.

¶67

The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions

¶68

from the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer, would submit that after the dharna conducted on 28.05.2020 by the members of the 5^th respondent trade union, in front of the office of the 1^st petitioner company at Inchakkal Junction, there was no agitation by the members of the 5^th respondent trade union or the members of the

¶69

W.P.(C)No.11645 of 2020(E) 14

¶70

respondents 6 to 9 trade unions.

¶71

The learned counsel for the 5^th respondent would submit that the members of the 5^th respondent trade union have no intention to create any obstruction to the operations of the 1^st petitioner company and also free movement of its officers and staff, since the conciliation proceedings are pending before the 10^th respondent Regional Labour Commissioner.

¶72

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to move respondents 3 and 4 Station House Officers seeking Police protection, in case any obstruction is caused to the operations of the 1^st petitioner company and also free movement of its officers, staff and vehicles by the members of respondents 5 to 9 trade unions. In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioners, respondents 3 and 4 shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the law laid down in this judgment.

¶73

No order as to costs.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

ANIL K. NARENDRAN

¶76

JUDGE

¶77

¶78

W.P.(C)No.11645 of 2020(E) 15

¶79

APPENDIX

¶80

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶81

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26/05/2020. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/06/2020 ISSUED BY 10TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PRINT OUT OF EMAIL DATED 08/06/2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PRINT OUT OF EMAIL DATED 09/06/2020, MARKING A COPY TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

Air India Sats Airport Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Air India Sats Airport Services Pvt. Ltd. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Krishnakumar Vs the District Collector

Aparna.K.a Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Moideen Sha Vs the State of Kerala

Sudheendran Vs State of Kerala

Oriental College of Teacher Education Vs the Regional Director

T. Muthalief Vs Additional District Magistrate, Kollam