IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38796 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.V.RAJITH KUMARI, KALYAN SADAN, AROLI P.O., PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PRADEEPAN.P., MAKYRAM, PALLIKULAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, TALIPARAMBA-670 141. 2. HAREENDRAN.P., CHANDROTH HOUSE, THALIYIL, UNIVERSITY P.O., KANNUR-670 141. 3. DAMODARAN.M.K., MADUMTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THALIYIL, KALLIASSERI P.O., KANNUR-670 007. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO.38796/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 10/05/2006 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION. P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/12/2010 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/12/2010 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KANNUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2/6/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE UNION TO THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER TALIPARAMBA. R3(B) COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 21/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE KANNUR DISTRICT FUEL EMPLOYEES UNION TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER KANNUR. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 38796 of 2010-Y ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner - a woman, who runs a retail petrol outlet, has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to the 1st respondent to afford effective police protection to her to prevent obstruction to the carrying on of the said business by her in the outlet. 2. According to the petitioner, she runs the petrol outlet in accordance with law on the strength of a licence issued to her. Respondents 2 and 3, according to the petitioner, are permanent workers of the outlet employed by her. According to her, all on a sudden without any valid justification, respondents 2 and 3 are illegally obstructing entry of vehicles to the petrol outlet and are interfering with the business of the establishment. W.P.(C) No. 38796 of 2010 -: 2 :- The petitioner laments that no dispute was raised and no strike notice was ever given. The illegal conduct of obstructing customers and others to the petrol bunk is causing difficulties to the petitioner. She hence prays for directions under Art.226 of the Constitution. 3. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through a counsel. They have filed a counter affidavit. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the allegations that respondents 2 and 3 are obstructing customers coming to the petrol outlet is false. It is true that there are certain disputes between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. That dispute is about the payment of minimum wages to the employees and also deployment of adequate personnel in the petrol bunk. Respondents 2 and 3 are not raising any illegal obstruction. They have no intention to do the same. They are only resorting to legal strike and demonstration in a Gandhian way as permitted by law. No blanket direction for police protection is liable to be given to the detriment of the right of the employees to strike work. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no objection against respondents 2 and 3 striking work in a peaceful manner. Attempts shall be made to settle the W.P.(C) No. 38796 of 2010 -: 3 :- disputes raised harmoniously in accordance with law. However, in the name of the strike the business of the petitioner may not be obstructed. Adequate arrangements may be made to ensure that there is no such illegal obstruction, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from the 1st respondent, submits that it is true that there is a dispute between the employer and the employees. However, according to the police, there has been no physical obstruction to the working of the petrol bunk of the petitioner. If there is any instance of illegal obstruction, the needful shall be done by the 1st respondent, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that directions in favour of the petitioner can be given. We accept the undertaking of respondents 2 and 3 that they shall not in any way obstruct the peaceful conduct of the business by the petitioner. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader, on behalf of the 1st respondent, that the 1st respondent shall ensure that there is no obstruction caused to the ingress and egress from the petrol bunk for the petitioner, her other employees and customers. W.P.(C) No. 38796 of 2010 -: 4 :- 7. This writ petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent directing the 1st respondent to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner if there be any obstruction caused by respondents 2 and 3 contrary to the undertaking given before this Court. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(C) No. 38796 of 2010 -: 5 :-