IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13728 of 2011(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- BAJAJ ALLIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY INDIA LTD., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF BRANCH MANAGER, P.K.BIJOY. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA-691506. 3. MR. SREEJITH.S., SREEJA NIVAS, VALATHUNGAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.691018. 4. INDUSEKHARAN NAIR, GENERAL SECRETARY, DISTRICT COMMITTEE, A.I.T.U.C., A.I.T.U.C. DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE, KADAPPAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM. 691008. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 13728/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/02/2011 IN WPC.NO.5587/2011 P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/03/2011 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/05/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3(a):COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.13728 of 2011-M ***************************** Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner company has again come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection for the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent herein was an employee of the petitioner at its Kollam branch. He and some others started attempting to obstruct the working of the petitioner's Kollam branch, obliging the petitioner to come to this Court with Writ Petition No.5587 of 2011 claiming police protection. When that matter came up before Court, accepting the undertaking of the respondents, including the 3rd respondent herein, Ext.P1 judgment was passed. That related to the alleged obstruction at the Kollam office of the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4, who are conscious of the fact that they are bound by Ext.P1, have now shifted their illegal conduct of obstruction to the branch of W.P(C) No.13728 of 2011-M 2 the petitioner at Kottarakkara. It is the grievance of the petitioner that there is illegal obstruction against the peaceful and orderly functioning of the petitioner's branch at Kottarakkara. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court again with this petition claiming protection. 4. Respondents 3 and 4 have entered appearance through a counsel. The learned counsel submits that respondents 3 and 4 have no intention whatsoever to obstruct the functioning of the Kottarakkara branch of the petitioner. They undertake that there shall not be any obstruction against willing workers or customers. Their access to the office of the petitioner at Kottarakkara shall not in any way be obstructed. They are interested only in peacefully demonstrating against the alleged illegal termination of the 3rd respondent. Preserving the right of respondents 3 and 4 and other members of the association of workers to hold such peaceful demonstration, appropriate directions can be issued, concedes the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. Identical directions as were W.P(C) No.13728 of 2011-M 3 issued in Ext.P1 can be issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of Kottarakkara branch or any other branch of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submits that the right of respondents 3 and 4 to stage peaceful demonstration against the alleged illegal termination of the 3rd respondent may not be fettered. 5. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We take note of the submission by respondents 3 and 4. Respondent No.4, we note, is arrayed as the General Secretary of the AITUC District Committee Office, which is said to be the union espousing the cause of the 3rd respondent. 6. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) Respondents 1 and 2 shall afford police protection to the petitioner to run its branch at Kottarakkara or other branches wherever it is situated. Respondent No.2 shall enforce this direction within his jurisdiction. Respondent No.1 shall enforce this direction throughout his jurisdiction; W.P(C) No.13728 of 2011-M 4 c) We make it clear that this direction for police protection shall not in any way fetter the option of respondents 3 and 4 and the union representing them to stage peaceful demonstrations against the alleged illegal termination of the 3rd respondent. We make it clear that access for customers and willing workers shall not in any way be obstructed by respondents 3 and 4 and their union. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/