IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18367 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. FCI OEN CONNECTORS LIMITED, P.B. NO. 1958, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA,COCHIN-682019, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY, MR. BIJU K. ELIAS. 2. G. RAJAMANI, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE), FIC OEN CONNECTORS LIMITED, P.B. NO.1958, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA, COCHIN - 682 019. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PIRAVOM - 686 664. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ - 682 308. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY - 682 314. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ-682 308. 7. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHOTTANIKKARA - 682 312. 8. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, EXECUTIVE AND NON EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CITU), FIC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LIMITED, GLOBAL TOOLING CENTRE, THRIVANOYOOR - 682 308. 9. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD - 682 321. ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN FOR R8 GOVT.PLEADER SRI,VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.18367/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/2/2011 IN WP(C) NO.3427/2011. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/6/2011 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 18367 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. First petitioner company is conducting industrial units engaged in the manufacture of 'connectors'. They are having three factories at 'Mulanthuruthy'. The issue involved herein pertains to the factory situated at 'Thiruvaniyoor', workers of which are represented through the 8th respondent trade union. The 8th respondent had issued Ext.P1 strike notice, since the long term settlement could not be arrived with respect to matters governing salary and other emoluments payable to the workmen. It is stated that the existing long term settlement expired on 28/2/2010, and the labour officer is conciliating the issue for arriving new long term settlement. 2. According to the petitioner, they have got time bound contracts for supply of goods, entered with various concerns including public sector undertakings and any obstruction which will be caused to functioning of the factory due to the strike noticed, will cause severe prejudices. The petitioners apprehend WPC.No.18367/2011 2 that, under the guess of the strike called for, obstructions will be caused to the willing workers from entering the factory and in continuing their work. Under such circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 complaint before the 2nd respondent. Since no positive action was taken, this writ petition is filed seeking direction to afford police protection to the running of the factory. 3. In the counter filed on behalf of the 8th respondent it is mentioned that, the strike notice in question was served only on 29/6/2011 and the strike in question is proposed only after 15 days. According to the 8th respondent, the management is not acceding to reasonable demands of the workmen and that they are not co-operating with the conciliations. However, it is conceded that the 8th respondent is not proposing to prevent any willing workers or executive staff of the petitioner from entering into the premises, with any intention to put pressure on the management to acceded to such demands. It is further stated that there is no law and order problem which warrants interference of police and that the request made through Ext.P3 is highly premature and is anticipatory in nature. 4. Considering the rival contentions and the situation WPC.No.18367/2011 3 prevailing, we are of the considered opinion that there exist labour problem with regard to the terms of employment. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the management of the company is willing to co-operate with the conciliation steps initiated at the behest of the 9th respondent, which is stated to be scheduled on 14/7/2011. So also, we take note of the statement of the 8th respondent that they are not intending to cause any physical obstruction with respect to the willing workers. 5. . Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing respondents 2 to 7 to have constant vigil on the situation arising out the proposed strike. It is made clear that the members of the 8th respondent will be at liberty to demonstrate peaceful strike or agitations. However, they are not entitled to cause any obstructions to the star of the management and the willing workers or the vehicles from entering into the factory premises or any other sort of obstruction to the normal functioning of the factory. Respondents 2 to 7 will take take effective steps to ensure that the situation as mentioned above and also the peaceful law WPC.No.18367/2011 4 and order situation is maintained in the premises and the locality. The claims regarding the labour dispute shall be pursued before the appropriate authority of the Labour Department and efforts shall be taken by both sides to achieve peaceful settlement. The writ petition is disposed of with the observations and directions contained as hereinabove. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk