Disposed

K.v.Pareed v. District Police Chief

Kerala HC6 Nov 2020WP(C)/16588/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought police protection to execute a tree-cutting agreement obstructed by union members. The High Court directed police to act swiftly upon request if obstruction occurs and ordered the Labour Officer to finalize conciliation proceedings, balancing protection with workers' lawful strike rights.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach Station House Officer for police protection if obstruction is caused; District Labour Officer to finalize conciliation proceedings.

K.v.Pareed Vs District Police Chief — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

W.P.(C)No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.V.PAREED, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. VEERAN, PROPRIETOR, NEW KERALA INDUSTRIES, KOTTAPPADI P O, KOTHAMANGALAM, RESIDING AT KUNNATHAN HOUSE, KOTTAPADY P. O., KOTHAMANGALAM - 686692.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, O/O. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -689645.

¶11

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -689645.

¶12

3 DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, O/O THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689645.

¶13

4 PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT FOREST DEPOT LOADING AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, UNION OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689649, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI. R.SUKUMARAN NAIR,

¶14

5 B.M.S. UNION SOUTH KERALA HEADLOAD AND GENERAL MASDOOR SANGAM, UNION OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI.P.G. HARIKUMAR.

¶15

6 A.I.T.U.C UNION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS

¶16

W.P.(C) No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶17

¶18

COUNCIL, UNION OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -689645, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI. M.V.VIDHYADHARAN.

¶19

7 C.I.T.U UNION PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS COUNCIL, UNION OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689645, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI.MALAYALAPUZHA MOHANAN. 8 U.T.U.C UNION KERALA EAST FOREST AND PLANTATION LABOUR UNION, R.S.P OFICE, VADASSERIKKARA P. O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -689662, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI.P.M. CHACKO. 9 C.I.T.U. UNION KERALA FOREST WORKERS UNION, UNION OFFICE, NADUVATHUM MUZHI, KALLELI THOTTAM P. O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689691, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL CONVENOR, SRI.K.P. ASHRAF. 10 I.N.T.U.C, FOREST WORKERS UNION, UNION OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689691, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT SECRETARY, SRI.T.CHANDRAN, 11 B.M.S UNION, B.M.S. OFFICE, NADUVATHUM MUZHI, KALLELI THOTTAM P. O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689691, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL CONVENOR, SRI.SUDHAKARAN K.R,. 12 I.N.T.U.C UNION, DISTRICT HEADLOAD AND FOREST WORKERS CONGRESS, UNION OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689691, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI. P.K.GOPI.

¶20

13 A.I.T.U.C UNION, FOREST WORKERS UNION, UNION OFFICE, NADUVATHUM MUZHI, KALLELI THOTTAM P. O.,

¶21

W.P.(C) No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶22

¶23

PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -689691, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.K.V. THOMAS,

¶24

R5-R13 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶25

OTHER PRESENT:

¶26

SRI P.P.THAJUDHEEN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

W.P.(C) No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶29

¶30

¶31

The petitioner, who has entered into an agreement for cutting and removing rubber trees from Koney Estate of M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Plantations by entering into Ext.P1 agreement dated 07.02.2020, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to afford sufficient Police protection to the petitioner and his employees, from the members of respondents 4 to 13 Unions, to execute the work as per Ext.P1 agreement, in time. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to provide adequate Police protection to the petitioner for getting the work done with his own workers. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to take action on Ext.P3 complaint made by the petitioner. Going by the averments in the writ petition, on account of obstruction caused by certain member of respondents 4 to 13 Unions in execution of work as per Ext.P1 agreement, the petitioner moved to the 2^nd respondent Station House Officer, seeking Police protection.

¶32

On 14.08.2020, when this writ petition came up for

¶33

admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for

¶34

W.P.(C) No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶35

¶36

respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner was directed to take out notice to respondents 4 to 13 by speed post. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the 3^rd respondent with regard to Ext.P2 and the disputes involved.

¶37

On 21.08.2020, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order:

¶38

“The petitioner pressed for urgent interim order. He wants to cut and remove the rubber trees in a plantation. The petitioner refers to Ext.P2 Conciliation Memorandum entered before the District Labour Officer, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner undertakes before this Court that the petitioner would follow the Conciliation Memorandum. If that be so, the police shall accord protection to the petitioner to cut and remove the trees in accordance with the Conciliation Memorandum entered before the District Labour Officer. The Police also can seek any assistance from the District Labour Officer. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the Conciliation Memorandum, the police need not accord any protection to him. The police protection granted as above would on condition that the petitioner strictly abides by the Conciliation Memorandum.”

¶39

Service of notice is not complete on the 4^th respondent, since notice returned with an endorsement ‘not known’. The petitioner has filed I.A. No.2 of 2020, today (06.11.2020) as benchmark, seeking an order to delete the 4^th respondent from the party array. That application is allowed by a separate order, at the

¶40

W.P.(C) No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶41

¶42

risk of the petitioner.

¶43

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 5 to 13, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. In the counter affidavit, the respondents has raised certain demands for enhancement of wages, by renewing the agreement. The specific stand taken by respondents 5 to 13 is that they have no intention to cause any obstruction to the work undertaken by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1 or to create a law and order situation.

¶44

Along with I.A. No.1 of 2020, the petitioner has placed on record Ext.P5 communication dated 29.05.2020, issued by the Deputy General Manager (Commercial), M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Limited, whereby considering the circumstances which has arised out of COVID-19 pandamic and based on the request made by the petitioner, the company had extended the last date of felling of trees in field numbers R88 A, 88 B, 90 and 91, totaling to 17,159 numbers in Koney Estate, till 31.12.2020.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for repondents 5 to 13.

¶46

The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions

¶47

W.P.(C) No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶48

¶49

would submit that based on the interim order of this Court dated 21.08.2020, the 2^nd respondent Inspector of Police, Konni Police Station, who is the Station House Officer, has afforded necessary Police protection to the petitioner and his employees and he has also taken necessary steps to ensure that law and order is maintained in the locality. The learned Senior Government Pleader would also submit that the 3^rd respondent District Labour Officer shall proceed further with the conciliation proceedings.

¶50

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 the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police

¶51

W.P.(C) No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶52

¶53

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.

¶54

Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus;

¶55

"In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, well-trained and welldisciplined 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. 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."

¶56

In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary

¶57

[(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 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

¶58

W.P.(C) No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶59

¶60

Apex Court reiterated the said principle in Ankush Maruti Shinde

¶61

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

¶62

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 illeffects 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 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

¶63

W.P.(C) No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶64

¶65

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.

¶66

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

¶67

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 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.

¶68

W.P.(C) No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶69

¶70

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.

¶71

In the instant case, the petitioner has entered into Ext.P1 agreement for cutting and removing rubber trees from Koney Estate of M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Plantations. As evident from Ext.P5 communication dated 29.05.2020 issued by the Deputy General Manager (Commercial) of M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., the last date of felling trees in field Nos.R88 A, 88 B, 90 and 91, totaling to 17,159 numbers in Koney Estate, is extended till 31.12.2020. The members of respondents 5 to 13 Unions are having certain disputes with the petitioner regarding enhancement of wages. Now that dispute is pending conciliation before the 3^rd respondent District Labour Officer. The members of respondents 5 to 13 unions can certainly resort to strike as one of the modes of recognised form of expression. The right of strike as part of collective bargaining is

¶72

W.P.(C) No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶73

¶74

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. When there are acts of violence by the striking workers, the petitioner is entitled to adequate and effective police protection. However, an order for police protection cannot frustrate and thwart the attempt of the workers and their unions to raise disputes or the 3^rd respondent District Labour Officer in holding conciliation proceedings for amicable settlement of that dispute.

¶75

Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to move the 2^nd respondent Station House Officer in case any obstruction is caused to the work undertaken in terms of Ext.P1 agreement, by the members of respondents 5 to 13 unions. In case any such request for police protection is made, the 2^nd respondent Station House Officer shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the law laid down in this judgment. The 3^rd respondent District Labour Officer shall proceed further with the conciliation proceedings and finalise the same, as expeditiously as possible.

¶76

The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶77

W.P.(C) No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶78

¶79

and the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 13 that parties shall co-operate with the conciliation proceedings before the 3^rd respondent District Labour Officer, is recorded.

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶82

MIN

¶83

W.P.(C) No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶84

¶85

APPENDIX

¶86

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶87

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 07.02.2020

¶88

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONCILIATION MEMORANDUM DATED 24.04.2019.

¶89

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 03.08.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶90

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT VIDE NO.87358/2020 DATED 03.08.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶91

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENSION ORDER DATED 29/5/2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL), HARRISONS MALAYAM LIMITED

¶92

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶93

EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE EMPLOYERS AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIONS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER DATED 25.07.2018. EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 24.04.2019. EXHIBIT R5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER DATED 24.07.2020. EXHIBIT R5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT SECRETARY OF THE CITU, KERALA FOREST WORKERS UNION DATED 13.08.2020.

¶94

W.P.(C) No.16588 OF 2020(W)

¶95

¶96

EXHIBIT R5(E) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICE BEARERS OF THE VARIOUS UNION BEFORE THE PETITIONER DATED 01.08.2020. EXHIBIT R5(F) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT PREPARED ON 06.08.2020 REGARDING THE DETAILS OF THE WORK DONE. EXHIBIT R5(G) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE UNIONS BEFORE THE PETITIONER ON 09.06.2020. EXHIBIT R5(H) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF VARIOUS TRADE UNIONS DATED 11.5.2020.

K.v.Pareed v. District Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Pareed v. District Police Chief

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

K B Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala

Ajanthakumari Vs State of Kerala

V.P.Joy Vs State of Kerala

P.Sundaran Vs State of Kerala

Meppayur Salafi Training College Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Iqbal College Trust Vs National Council for Teacher Education