IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 9619 of 2011(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ URSULA HOSPITAL,AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA-688 561. REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR SR.THARSIA. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA-690 575. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,AMABALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA-690 575. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,AMBALAPUZHA POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA-690 575. 4. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION (BMS), AMBALAPUZHA,ALAPPUZHA-690 575. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,K.PRADEEP. 5. K.PRADEEP,SECRETARY,HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION (BMS),AMBALAPPUZHA,ALAPPUZHA-690 575. *ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED: R6. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. (*ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT IS SUO- MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 17/06/2011 IN WPC.) R1 TO R3 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M.CHARISMA R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU, SRI.K.SURESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9619/2011 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION UNDER THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN LITERARY, SCIENTIFIC AND CHARITABLE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1955. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 23/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 10/03/2011. P4: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS. P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 15/03/2011 AND NUMBERED AS I.R./5326/10 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. P7: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.22/03/2011 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(A): COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 29/11/2010. R4(B): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER. R4(C): COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 15/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER. R4(D): COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO MANJU.K.MURALI A MEMBER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNION. R4(E): COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO MOLLY JOSHY. R4(F): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 28/03/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER. R4(G): COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER DTD. 30/03/2011. R4(H): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALAPPUZHA DTD. 11/04/2011. R4(I): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMABALAPPUZHA DTD. 11/04/2011. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.9619 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner - a hospital, has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection for the peaceful and unobstructed running of the hospital against illegal objections that are raised by respondents 4 and 5 - trade union and its Secretary. 2. According to the petitioner, the hospital was being run by employing various workers including trainees etc. Now the petitioner has only 15 employees shown in the list annexed to the statement filed on 9th June 2011. All the others have been terminated in accordance with law, according to the petitioner. Respondents 4 and 5 are allegedly raising illegal objections/obstruction to the peaceful running of the hospital. This causes great difficulty to the petitioner. The police are not taking any meaningful action. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions. 3. Respondents 4 and 5 have entered appearance. WPC No.9619/2011 2 According to them, there is wrongful denial of employment to the workmen and the workmen are only resorting to their inalienable right to raise protest against the illegal action on the part of the management. The management is not entitled to deny employment to the others who were working earlier. Such wrongful denial of employment has given right to the present controversy. The management is not attending conciliation conferences. In these circumstances, the legitimate right of the workmen to protest against the illegal conduct on the part of the management is sought to be stifled by seeking directions for police protection. In these circumstances, the petition may be dismissed, submits the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 4. When the matter came up for hearing on 30.3.2011, interim directions were issued by this Court. We extract the relevant portion of the order dated 30.3.2011 below. “The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that though there is an industrial dispute between the petitioner and the workmen represented by the 4th respondent union, the 4th and 5th respondents have no intention of obstructing the working of the WPC No.9619/2011 3 hospital. We record that undertaking by respondents 4 and 5. If there be any conduct in violation of the said undertaking, the police (respondents 1 to 3) shall afford necessary protection to the petitioner for the peaceful and orderly running of the hospital without any obstruction from respondents 4 and 5 and the members of the 4th respondent. We, however, make it clear that this order shall not in any way fetter the rights of respondents 4 and 5 to peacefully demonstrate in support of their demands provided that they shall not block the ingress and egress to the hospital by the willing employees, patients or bystanders.” 5. It is submitted that this order did also not succeed in working out harmony between the parties as respondents 4 and 5 insisted that 20 persons shown in the list dated 1.6.2011 filed by them should also be given employment. Describing themselves to be willing workers, they entered the premises of the hospital and obstructed the running of the hospital. According to respondents 4 and 5, those 20 persons were also willing workers. They were willing to work in the establishment. They have gone to the premises, but on the plea that they are not at present workers, they were not permitted to work and that led to controversy. It is in the light of that controversy that we direct both parties to file statements. List of 20 willing workmen has been filed by respondents WPC No.9619/2011 4 4 and 5 whereas the petitioner has filed a list of 15 willing workers. There is no overlapping between the two lists. 6. We directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to explain the status of the 20 persons shown in the list dated 1.6.2011 filed by respondents 4 and 5. Today a further reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to confirm that all the 20 persons named in the list filed by respondents 4 and 5 are retrenched/removed trainees/workmen. It is the case of the petitioners that their termination was in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in these circumstances, there is no merit in the claim that those 20 persons must be reckoned as willing workers and permitted to work. The learned counsel for the petitioner now makes a renewed specific prayer that the petitioner may be permitted to get the work done by employing 15 persons named in the list appended to the statement dated 9.6.2011. 7. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that conciliation proceedings are pending. Any direction hereby issued, it may be clarified, shall not affect WPC No.9619/2011 5 the rights of respondents 4 and 5 and workmen who they represent to raise appropriate contentions before the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 further submits that any order granted in favour of the petitioner may be subject to the further rider that the petitioner must attend conciliation conferences called by the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that this petition can now be disposed of by issuing appropriate directions. 9. In the result, a) This writ petition is allowed. b) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed specifically to afford protection to the petitioner to run the hospital employing the 15 persons shown in the list appended to the statement dated 9.6.2011 filed by the petitioner against any obstruction that may be raised by respondents 4 and 5 and others acting under them. c) It is made clear that all other workmen who want to protest against the action taken by the management shall WPC No.9619/2011 6 be at liberty to raise their protest peacefully outside the premises subject to the strict conditions that they shall not obstruct egress and ingress to the hospital by the willing staff referred above or other patients/customers/ byestanders. d) We further make it clear that this direction is subject to the condition that the petitioner must attend conciliation conferences called by the labour authorities and co-operate with their efforts to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. This will be prejudice to any contention that they want to raise in such proceedings. e) We further make it clear that this order shall not in any way affects the right of respondents 4 and 5 or other workmen who they represent to raise appropriate contentions and seek relief from the appropriate authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ WPC No.9619/2011 7 WPC No.9619/2011 8 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.9619 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th June, 2011 ORDER Basant, J. There is great dichotomy between the list furnished by both parties. No satisfactory explanation is offered about such dichotomy. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants time to explain whether 20 persons named in the list submitted by the union are/were workers of the establishment and if so how their services have been terminated. We further feel it necessary to suo motu array the District Labour Officer before whom conciliation proceedings are pending as additional respondent No.6. Additional respondent No.6 is so impleaded. The learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent No.6. The learned Government Pleader shall take instructions from respondent No.6 by 24.6.2011. WPC No.9619/2011 9 Call on 24.6.2011. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ WPC No.9619/2011 10 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.9619 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd June, 2011 ORDER Basant, J. Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file statement. Counsel for the respondent submits that a statement is being filed. Call on 9.6.2011 finally for hearing and disposal. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/