The writ petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, supplying products to Bharath Earth Movers Limited (BEML), which is an establishment under the Ministry of Defence, Union of India.The 4th respondent is a registered Trade Union of the petitioner Company and respondents 5 to 12 are the previous and present Office Bearers of the 4th respondent Union.According to the writ petitioner, there has been some industrial dispute between the Management and the Union and the same is pending.The Union office bearers and other members went on strike from 15.11.2007, which according to the petitioner is illegal, since there was no proper notice given and it was in violation of the wage settlement.5(a).Since there were no effective steps taken by respondents 1 to 3, the writ petitioner has filed O.S.No.54 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Court, Hosur for permanent injunction restraining the 4th respondent and its members from obstructing and preventing the ingress and egress of men and materials from and to the factory and from holding any violent demonstrations and meetings, shouting defamatory slogans, etc. within 300 meters from the petitioner's factory.5(b).When the matter came up for admission, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate, who has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 to find out the actual position of the case.On 07.12.2007, the learned Government Advocate, on oral instructions from the second respondent has submitted that in the writ petitioner's factory there has been a dispute between the Management and its employees regarding the status of alleged temporary workers.It was also submitted that in the Campus of the factory one Sub-Inspector of Police and five Police Constables were posted round-the-clock to give protection.He also submitted that en route the place of manufacture and supply, 20 Policemen were posted for the purpose of giving protection.He also submitted that in order to have a peaceful atmosphere, a suggestion was made by respondents 1 to 3 to the writ petitioner to move the materials from the factory twice a week and in such an event, the petitioner Management can give an advance information to the second respondent, so as to enable the second respondent to give adequate protection and maintain law and order.The said submission made by the learned Government Advocate was recorded and the writ petition was disposed of with direction to the second respondent to give police protection in the above terms as and when the petitioner gives advance information.Today, Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, learned Government Advocate on oral instructions from the second respondent viz. Mrs.Shyamala Devi would submit that in respect of the petitioner's factory, there has been some dispute between the factory and the employees/workmen, regarding the workmen having been changed.It is also further submitted, on instructions, within the campus of the factory one Sub Inspector of Police and 5 police constables have been posted to give protection round the clock.He would also submit that enroute to the place of manufacture and supply, 20 policemen are posted for the purpose of giving protection.He also submitted that in order to have a peaceful atmosphere, a suggestion was made to the petitioner, to move the materials twice a week and in such event, the petitioner-Management can give advance information to the second respondent so as to enable the second respondent to give adequate protection and to maintain law and order.The above submission made by the learned Government Advocate is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to give police protection on the above terms as and when the petitioner gives an advance information.No costs.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed."Considering the genuineness of the claim made by respondents 4 to 12 in the writ petition, who have received the notice about the writ petition only on 08.12.2007, this Court by order dated 21.01.2008, has directed the respondents 4 to 12 to file counter affidavit in the main writ petition and also directed the main writ petition to be posted for counter.The counter has been filed by respondents 4 to 12 and both the Miscellaneous Petition and the main writ petition were heard together.The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.100 of 2007 for temporary injunction.The trial Court, on 09.06.2007, has passed an order of injunction against 4th respondent and its Union members from holding any violent demonstrations and meetings, shouting defamatory slogans, etc. within 200 meters from the petitioner's factory and from gheraoing the management staff, officers, apprentices and from preventing vehicle with finished, unfinished, semi-finished products, raw materials and fixtures and other things from entering into the factory or leaving the factory.5(c).After the said order, the writ petitioner has once again approached respondents 1 to 3 for giving protection to enforce the injunction order granted by the Civil Court.According to the petitioner, even after the order of injunction, respondents 4 to 12 have involved in illegal activities by erecting tent within 20 meters from the factory main gate; assembling in groups and shouting abusive and threatening slogans in front of the gate; threatening and intimidating the staff while entering and leaving the factory; indulging in stopping the vehicles and checking the personal belongings, bags etc. of the staff while leaving the factory; assaulting essential service suppliers and thereby paralysing the functioning of the factory; and causing damages to the vehicles by breaking the wind shield etc. which bring materials to the company.It was in the circumstance that in spite of the injunction being made absolute after hearing respondents 4 to 12, the said respondents have indulged in the said activities, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.Respondents 4 to 12 have filed counter affidavit.As per the counter affidavit, it is the case of the respondents that they have filed CMA.No.44 of 2007 against the order of injunction granted in I.A.No.100 of 2007 in O.S.No.54 of 2007 and they have also applied for the stay of order of injunction.Therefore, according to the respondents 4 to 12, the writ petitioner having approached the Civil court, cannot file the present writ petition.According to the respondents, the writ petitioner has committed unfair labour practice and dismissed 33 workers, including respondents 5,8,11 and 12, without enquiry.There is also breach of settlement by demanding the workers to perform higher work load which created industrial strife.According to respondents 4 to 12, an offender cannot be granted any discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction.The reason for strike called by respondents 4 to 12 is the illegal demand of the petitioner for upward revision of work load, in violation of the settlement between the parties entered in January,2006 which expires on 30th June,2008 and during the bilateral negotiations also the Management is demanding higher work load.6(a).According to respondents 4 to 12, the Management has brought 45 outsiders labelling them as "Trainees" and kept them as day in and day out, only to intimidate the workers.The complaint to Inspector of Factories has not been attended by the Inspector properly and the issue is pending before the Division Bench by way appeal.Therefore, according to the respondents, the demands made by them are not illegal.The notice for strike was given on 10.10.2007 and from 15.11.2007, respondents 4 to 12 and its Union workers are on legal strike.The idea of the writ petitioner is to break the strike by undertaking outsiders and also to achieve production.The police protection itself is sought for only to break the strike, which is legal.Since respondents 4 to 12 have already filed appeal against the order of injunction granted by the Civil Court, the writ petitioner is not entitled for any interim order in this case.R.Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that there are totally 163 workmen employed in the writ petitioner Company and while admitting that the 4th respondent is a major Union consisting more number of workers who are on strike from 15.11.2007, his contention is that respondents 4 to 12 have lost their case before the Civil Court in the interlocutory application stage, since the Civil Court has granted injunction pending suit after hearing both sides and it is the respondents 4 to 12 who have filed appeal against the said order and it is not necessary for the writ petitioner to approach the Civil Court again and it is the duty of respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition to give protection to the petitioner in order to implement the civil Court order.7(a).According to the learned senior counsel, even the finished products which are situated inside the factory of the petitioner are not allowed to be taken away and under the guise of right of strike, the employees should not indulge in illegal and violent activities.According to him, respondents 4 to 12 have no right to prevent the employees who are willing to work and other persons who are entering into the factory premises cannot be prevented in the name of strike.His further contention is that respondents 4 to 12 are not allowing any lorry even to go out, with the result, the writ petitioner is unable to supply materials to Defence Department.7(b).He would also rely upon an order of this Court made in W.P.No.33949 of 2007 dated 29.10.2007, in which the claim of the 4th respondent Union for direction to take action against the writ petitioner, viz., not to engage trainees/apprentices, was dismissed.He would also submit that many criminal complaints have been given by the writ petitioner.The learned Government Advocate, on instructions would submit that between 15.11.2007 and 19.11.2007, 2 Police Constables were posted regularly in the premises of the writ petitioner; from 20.11.2007 to 07.12.2007 one Sub-Inspector of Police and 4 Constables were posted daily in the premises and from 08.12.2007 till date two Police Constables have been posted to give 24 hour protection to the writ petitioner Company.The complaints by the employer/writ petitioner relate to damage to public properties while the complaints by the workmen relate to threatening and making division among the workers.According to learned Government Advocate, Crime No.9 of 2008 has been registered by police on 05.01.2008 under Sections 323 and 324 IPC.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 12 submits that the Union members are on legal strike from 15.11.2007, which arose under Industries Disputes Act. According to him, the writ petitioner/employer failed to act as per the settlement on payment of wages and work load and wanted to extract higher work load and many workers have been dismissed without notice.His submission is that in the name of engaging outsiders and calling them as apprentices/trainees, the writ petitioner employed them as regular employees and the idea of the writ petitioner is to divide the Union and if that is allowed, the concept of collective bargain will be thrown to winds, which is not the intend of the legislature in making laws.I have heard Mr.R.Gandhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.L.S.M.Hazan Fizal, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner has approached the Civil Court and filed a suit against the 4th respondent and its Union members.When the employer attempts to divide the striking workers, which is lawful, it is certainly open to the 4th respondent Union and its members to approach the Inspector of Factories or raise an industrial dispute by treating the same as unfair labour practice, etc. and the immunity granted under Section 18(1) of the Act cannot mean to say that the Union must be permitted to achieve its object by resorting to the method which are not permitted in law.In view of the above said facts and legal position, I am of the considered view that the writ petitioner must be granted police protection in the light of the order of injunction granted on 09.06.2007 in I.A.No.100 of 2007 in O.S.No.54 of 2007, which was made absolute on 21.11.2007, to perform its legal obligations, but at the same time, with liberty to the 4th respondent Union to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of its grievance regarding the alleged employment of trainees/apprentices on regular basis by the writ petitioner.In view of the same, the writ petition stands ordered on the above terms.No costs.1.The Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Hosur, Krishnagiri District.3.The Inspector of Police SIPCOT, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

Sections cited: Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code