IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22130 of 2011(M) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED, KANJIKODE WEST P.O., PALAKKAD-678 623, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MR.A.BALAJI. 2. MR.A.BALAJI, GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED, KANJIKODE WEST P.O., PALAKKAD-678 623. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF EKRALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD-678 013. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASBA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD- 678 623. 4. PALAKKAD DISTRICT ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES MAZDOOR SANGAM, REG.NO.219/85 (AFFILIATED TO BHARTHIYA MAZDOOR SANGAM) BMS OFFICE, HARIKKARA STREET, PALAKKAD-678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, MR.P.G.SASIDHARAN. WP(C).No. 22130 of 2011(M) -2- 5. PREMIER BREWERIES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (INTUC), REG.NO.228/77, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD-678 623, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, MR.P.RAMKUMAR. 6. PREMIER BREWERIES EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU) REG.NO.405/78, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD-678 623, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, MR.T.MURUGESAN. 7. MR.PRAJITH.N, ERUPPAKODE HOUSE, PULLODE P.O., PALAKKAD-678 545. ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN FOR R4 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA - R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22130 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.09/08/11 ONE EMPLOYEE SUBMITTED TO THE MANAGEMENT. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.10/08/11 ONE EMPLOYEE SUBMITTED TO THE MANAGEMENT. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.10/08/11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.10/08/11 SUBMITTED TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.10/08/11 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS EXT.R4(a):- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF KUNJI MUHAMMED. EXT.R4(b):-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PETITIONER DT.23/04/10 EXT.R4(c):-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PETITIONER DT.31/05/11 EXT.R4(d):-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PETITIONER DT.08/08/11 EXT.R4(e):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY KUNJI MUHAMMED EXT.R4(f):-TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT APPEARED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 11/08/11 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.22130 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J First petitioner company as well as the second petitioner who is its General Manager are approaching this court seeking police protection to enable the petitioners as well as their willing employees to run the factory in a smooth manner without there being any obstruction caused to the ingress and egress to the willing employees, trainees, executives and vehicles, to and from the factory premises. Direction is also sought for to prevent any Dharna or demonstrations or construction of any temporary shed, anywhere within the radius of 200 metres from the entrance of the factory. 2. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on W. P. C. No.22130 of 2011 -2- 12/08/11, this Court granted interim directions to respondents 2 and 3 to afford adequate protection to the petitioner and their willing employees and to permit transport the finished products amounting to one lakh cases from the premises of the factory to its destination, without being obstructed in any manner. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated that the dispute pertains to denial of employment to one of the trainees, who is the member of the 4th respondent union. It is stated that in view of the illegitimate denial of employment, other trainees and probationers have also abstained from work. Apart from that there was no strike or any sort of obstruction caused by the 4th respondent and that the Writ Petition is filed in a frivolous manner with baseless allegations. 4. On the other hand, Sri.Benny P. Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the protesting W. P. C. No.22130 of 2011 -3- unions are creating obstructions on the Gate of the first petitioner factory by shouting slogans and even creating obstructions to the ingress and egress. 5. In view of the circumstances as narrated above and in view of the rival contentions, we are of the opinion that respondents 4 to 7 or anybody claiming under them have no manner of right to create any obstruction to the functioning of the factory or to the ingress and egress of the management, staff, employees trainees and probationers or to the free transportation of materials and to the free ingress and egress of vehicles. We also observe that the 4th respondent is not entitled to conduct any demonstration in front of the factory in any manner causing obstructions to the ingress and egress to the factory. 6. In case any obstruction or any threat or intimidation is reported the respondents 2 and 3 should take adequate steps to avert such situation and to ensure smooth W. P. C. No.22130 of 2011 -4- functioning of the first petitioner company. 7. However, it is made clear that if there is any dispute regarding denial of employment or on any other matters relating to service of the employees represented by the 4th respondent union, they will be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy from competent authorities, as provided under law. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions and observations. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-