IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9430 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ TECIL CHEMICALS AND HYDRO POWER LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, M.G.VIJAYAN, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH SRI.T.R.SADEESAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINGAVANAM. 4. TECIL WORKERS UNION (AITUC) REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY, K.BABU, TECIL WORKERS QUARTERS, CHINGAVANAM. 5. TECIL WORKERS UNION, (CITU), REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY, P.N.CHANDRAN, TECIL WORKERS QUARTERS, CHINGAVANAM. 6. TECIL WORKERS UNION, (INTUC) REPRESENTED BY ITS WORING SECRETARY, JAMES, TECIL WORKERS QUARTERS, CHINGAVANAM. sts WP(C)NO.9430/2010 7. N.K.IBRAHIMKUTTY, TECIL WORKERS QUARTERS, CHINGAVANAM. 8. T.T.MOHANAN, THAKIDIYIL HOUSE, S.PURAM P.O., KURICHI, CHINGAVANAM. 9. K.V.VISWAJITH, KELACHADAYIL, NEELAMPEROOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R4 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.SURESH SRI.S.MANU SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.9430/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE LOCKOUT NOTICE DATED 5/7/99. P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF LOCK OUT DATED 18/9/99. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A. 3471/2009 IN O.S.NO.624/09. P4 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/11/2009. P5 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16/3/2010 P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2/3/2011 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 2/3/2011. P7 COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT WHICH APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 3/3/2011. P8 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 4/3/11. P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7/4/2010 IN WP(C)NO.7578/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A) COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED 7/2/2007. R5(B) COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 30/7/2009. R5(C) COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED AS PER SECTION 36 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. R5(D) COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR (R.R) KOTTAYAM ON 25/6/2009. R5(E) COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL OFFICER REVENUE OF KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD TO THE PETITIONER COMPANY DATED 17/3/2009. R5(F) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 8/12/2010. R5(G) COPY OF THE MINUTESOF THE MEETING DATED 11/2/2011. R6(A) COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS)122/05/IND DATED 19/9/2005. R6(B) COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 7/2/2007. R6(C) COPY OF THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT DATED 18/12/2008 WP(C)NO.9430/2010 R6(D) COPY OF THE ORDER HTB-10/1040/TECIL DATED 17/03/2009. R6(E) COPY OF THE NOTE ALONG WITH THE CLOSURE PACKAGE SUBMITTED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 22/5/2009. R6(F) COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.302/2009/RD DATED 30/7/2009. R6(G) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/12/2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 9430 OF 2010 C ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st April, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Petitioner, a company has come to this Court claiming issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection for the life and person of the management personnel and security personnel. According to the petitioner the company is under lock out from 5-7-1999. There were about 750 employees when the company was locked out but it is asserted that 650 employees have received their benefits and have quit the services of the company. About 100 employees still remain and respondents 4 to 6 are trade unions representing the said about 100 workmen. According to the petitioner the said unions (i.e respondents 4 to 6) and the members of the said trade unions are indulging in gross and wanton acts of violence. It is in these circumstances and with the said averments that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition. WPC 9430/2010 2 2. The Bench which dealt with the matter on 25-3-2010 passed the following interim order:- “There will be an interim order directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the lives of the officers of the petitioner, including security personnel from any illegal acts of respondents 4 to 9. However we make it clear that under the cover of this order, petitioner shall not remove any of the machinery from the premises of the company.” The said interim order remains in force even now. 3. The matter has come up now for hearing finally. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in violation of the order dated 25-3-2010 the respondent unions and workmen have destroyed the company property and have reduced the company property into their possession. It is significant to note that there is no grievance raised so far formally that there has been any contempt on the part of respondents 1 to 3 in not implementing the interim order dated 25-3-2010. The respondent unions stoutly deny the allegation that the unions and their members have indulged in any such conduct. WPC 9430/2010 3 4. At the moment and with the available inputs we are not persuaded to agree that there has been any violation of the order dated 25-3-2010. We will proceed on the assumption that the said order has been enforced by respondents 1 to 3. The learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 submits that according to the instructions of the learned Govt. Pleader the said order is being enforced strictly. 5. We have heard both sides. We feel that the only question to be considered is whether the interim order dated 25-3-2010 deserves to be made absolute or not. Respondents 4 to 6 who have appeared through counsel stoutly oppose the grant of any relief to the petitioner. It is submitted that the company functions at premises granted to the company by the Government. The Government by Ext.R5(b) order has ordered resumption of possession of the land given to the company, submits the learned counsel for the Unions. Movable articles in the factory have been attached and there is an attempt by the company to clandestinely remove the attached articles. In these circumstances the petitioner company is not entitled to the invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Art.226 submits the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6. WPC 9430/2010 4 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The Government's order Ext.R5(b) to resume possession of the land leased to the company is under challenge before this Court and interim order of stay has already been granted by this Court in WPC 23414/2009 submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. In any case no orders have been produced. Similarly it is submitted that appropriate steps are being taken to resist the attempt by the Government to attach/destrain the properties belonging to the company. Appropriate legal proceedings have been initiated against such action of the Government, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. We are of the opinion that the substantial portion of the submissions made before Court do not really fall within the four walls of the jurisdiction that we are called upon to invoke and exercise – the jurisdiction to direct grant of police protection to the petitioner. The Government may be entitled to resume possession of the land. Government may be entitled to attach movables of the petitioner company. The Government may under law be entitled to take other action against the petitioner company. No order passed in this writ petition shall fetter the power, duties and rights to take such action, we have to clarify at WPC 9430/2010 5 the very first instance. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 submits that action taken against the petitioner by the Government is relevant to the limited extent i.e to convince this Court that the petitioner has not come to the Court with the clean hands and hence is not entitled to the invocation of the jurisdiction under Art.226 in favour of the petitioner. We take note of that. But we are certainly of the opinion that till the Government resumes land leased to the company and till the movables are attached by the Government, the petitioner company is entitled to protection of the land, personnel and machinery. The interim order has granted protection only to the lives of the officers of the petitioner company including security personnel against any illegal acts of respondents 4 to 9. The various action taken by the Government cannot at any rate disentitle the petitioner to the limited relief granted by the Bench under the interim order. 8. We are in these circumstances satisfied that the interim order can be made absolute and this petition can be allowed in part to the above extent. We may hasten to observe that this judgment shall not in any way fetter the rights of respondents 4 to 9 to peacefully demonstrate against the policy/action of the WPC 9430/2010 6 company. It is further clarified that the order of protection shall in no way fetter the rights of the Government to take appropriate action against the petitioner company under law. Subject to the above clarifications we are satisfied that this petition can be allowed in part. 9. In the result; a) This petition is allowed in part. b) The interim order dated 25-3-2010 extracted above is made absolute. c) It is made clear that these directions are subject to the above observations. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 9430/2010 7