Disposed

The Management of- v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Jul 2018WP/32694/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging police inaction regarding striking workers. An undertaking was taken from the workers union to hold a meeting within their private property without hindering public movement. Police were directed to ensure such meetings do not block traffic or factory access.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to ensure the union meeting does not prevent free ingress/egress to the factory or hinder free flow of traffic on the National Highway.

The Management of- Vs The Inspector of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.07.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

¶5

W.P. No.32694 of 2017 & W.M.P. Nos.36011 & 36868 of 2017

¶6

The Management of

¶7

Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. Melnallathur

¶8

Tiruvallur 602 004 represented by its Authorised Signatory Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

1 The Inspector of Police Thiruvallur Taluk Thiruvallur District Thiruvallur

¶11

2 Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. Workers' Union represented by its General Secretary Melnallathur

¶12

Thiruvallur 602 004 Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to provide adequate police protection for ingress and agress of vehicles and people from in and out of the factory premises and further vacate the trespassing workmen by ensuring that no striking workers assemble illegally in any form within the radius of 500 metres from the petitioner's factory premises, viz., Melnallathur Village, Thiruvallur, pursuant to the petitioner's complaint dated 11.12.2017.

¶14

For petitioner Mr. V. Karthic, Senior Counsel for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This writ petition has been preferred seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to provide adequate police protection for ingress and egress of vehicles and people from in and out of the factory premises and further vacate the trespassing workmen by ensuring that no striking workers

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

assemble illegally, in any form, within the radius of 500 metres from the petitioner's factory premises, viz., Melnallathur Village, Thiruvallur, pursuant to the petitioner's complaint dated 11.12.2017.

¶19

2 When this matter came up for admission on 15.12.2017, this Court passed the following order:

¶20

“Mr.S.Babu, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the first respondent. Notice to the second respondent returnable by 25.01.2018. Private notice is also permitted.

¶21

The petitioner had earlier moved this Court, seeking for a direction to refrain the trade union from indulging in any illegal strike. This court, by its earlier order dated 25.10.2017, in W.P.No.27413 of 2017 refrained the workers of the second respondent from sitting inside the factory premises, based on the undertaking given by the trade union that they will not sit inside the factory premises after working hours. It is now brought to my notice that the writ petition came to be subsequently allowed on 29.11.2017.

¶22

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent has now published a notice on 11.12.2017 calling for a strike. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the conciliation in connection with the dispute of the workers is pending before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour – II, Chennai. While that being so, it would be improper and illegal to permit the workers to go on a strike pending conciliation proceedings.

¶23

In these circumstances, there shall be an interim direction directing the first respondent to provide adequate police protection for ingress and egress of vehicles and people from in and out of the factory premises and further vacate the trespassing workmen by ensuring that no striking workers assemble illegally in any form within the radius of 200 meters from petitioner's factory premises namely Melnallathur Village, Thiruvallur District till 25.01.2018.”

¶24

3 C. Udayakumar, General Secretary of the second respondent Union, has filed an additional affidavit dated 27.02.2018, wherein, it is stated as under:

¶25

“1 I am the General Secretary of the petitioner

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

union in the above W.M.P. and second respondent in W.M.P. No.36011 of 2017 as well as in W.P. No.32694 of 2017 and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. I am authorised to file this affidavit on behalf of the Union.

¶28

2 It is submitted that the Union has not issued any strike notice and has no intention to go on strike without following due process of law. The Union has got a vacant plot which is opposite to the factory and the same is private property of the union. We want to conduct meeting in our private property. The meeting of the members of the petitioner union in their private property will not affect the ingress and egress to the factory. The meeting will not be near the company gate. There will not be any hindrance to free movement of the vehicles in the road opposite to the factory. The union cannot be prevented by the police to hold its meeting in its own property, particularly, when there will not be any inconvenience or disturbance to the public or to the company in any manner.”

¶29

4 Per contra, Mr. V. Karthic, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Management submitted that the property that is owned by the second respondent Union is situate opposite the factory gate and if the members of the second respondent union congregate, there is every possibility of the group spilling over on the National Highway and preventing ingress and egress to the petitioner's factory and there will also be hindrance to free flow of traffic.

¶30

5 Be that as it may, the fact remains that the General Secretary of the second respondent Union has filed the aforesaid affidavit undertaking that the second respondent Union will have meeting in their own property and that they will not cause any hindrance either to the petitioner Management or to the general public.

¶31

6 The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that, at present, there is no agitation or law and order problem near the petitioner's factory.

¶32

7 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the police shall ensure that any meeting convened by the second respondent Union in their own property, as stated above, does not prevent free ingress and egress into the petitioner's factory and also hinder free flow of traffic in the adjoining National Highway.

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Costs made easy. Connected W.M.Ps. are closed.

¶35

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
cad
To
1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
THIRUVALLUR TALUK
THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT
THIRUVALLUR
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUT – II, CHENNAI.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 49344
+1cc to Mr.T.S.GOPALAN & CO Advocate, S.R.No.49227
+1cc to Mr.BALAN HARIDAS, Advocate, S.R.No. 49217
W.P. No.32694 of 2017
KK(CO)
TR(02/08/2018)

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Management of- v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of- v. The 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

S.Ravi, Aged 51 Years, Vs the Station House Officer

Ramesh Kumar Guptha Vs The Deputy Commissioner of

Vedhavalli, F/a 55 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Velu@Velmurugan, M/A.35 Years Vs State by

D.Kabilan, Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Karthikeyan, Vs The Sub Inspector of Police