IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28809 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M/S.BRMSCO GARMENTS PVT. LTD.,HAVING ITS REGD. OFF: AT ONAKKUR,ANCHELPETTY P.O.,PAMPAKUDA, ERNAKULAM DIST.,REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI.AR SASIKUMAR,AGED 56 YEARS,SON OF SRI.RAMAN, ANPAMATTATHIL HOUSE,VADAYAMPADY P.O.,PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,KERALA. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, SHRI.TK VIJAYAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.SHRI.TK KOCHUVAVA, TRIKKEPURATH HOUSE, AMBALLUR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. 3. SHRI.JOHNEY VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS, HR MANAGER, BRMSCO GARMENTS PVT. LTD., ANCHELPETTY P.O., PAMPAKUDA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. 4. MR.K.ALEXANDER, AGED 29 YEARS, PRODUCTION MANAGER, BRMSCO GARMENTS PVT. LTD., ANCHELPETTY P.O., PAMPAKUDA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. 5. MR.BABU GEORGEM, AGED 41 YEARS, MAINTENANCE MANAGER, BRMSCO GARMENTS PVT. LTD., ANCHELPETTY P.O., PAMPAKUDA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.NIVEDITHA A.KAMATH SRI.G.ARUN GOPAN WPC.28809/10 2 RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TEH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. 3. THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA. 5. SURESH KR, KAKLANATTIL HOUSE, ONAKKOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. 6. ANISH PP, S/O.SHRI.PG PRABHAKARAN, PULIKKASSERI HOUSE, MEVLLOOR P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA. 7. RAJU IYPE, S/O.LATE SHRI.VAZHAKALAYIL HOUSE, MAMALASSERI P.O., RAMAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. 8. KRISHNADAS R.C., S/O.SHRI.T.K.SARADAMANI RAM NIWAS HOUSE, MAMALASSERI P.O., RAMAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. 9. SANTOSH TK, S/O.SHRI.KRISHNAN, THADATHIL HOUSE, ANCHELPETTY P.O., PAMPAKUDA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. 10. BIJU KM, S/O.SHRI.MANOHARAN, KATTAYIL HOUSE, MAMALASSERI P.O., RAMAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT KERALA. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R5 TO R8 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN SRI.S.KANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.28809/10 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER COMPANY DATED 3.9.2010. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPERSENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 3.9.2010. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY SMT.SHEEN JOY AND 28 OTHER EMPLOYEES TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 3.9.2010. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER, ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPIES TO HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERS DATED 2.9.2010. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P4. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPIES TO HIS UPERIOR OFFICERS DATED 3.9.2010. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE3RD RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF EXT.P4. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.28809 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The first petitioner has a garments industry. Petitioners 2 to 5 are officers of that establishment. It appears that the petitioners have certain disputes with respondents 5 to 8 who are also employees of the first petitioner. They allege that respondents 5 to 10 are unlawfully obstructing the activities of the petitioners. They have made certain complaints to the police authorities. The private respondents appear and have placed a counter affidavit producing the notice issued by the District Labour Officer convening a conference. Obviously, it is within the province of the DLO to find out ways and means of an amicable settlement or to generate appropriate conciliatory or other means which could ultimately even lead to adjudicatory measures in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or otherwise. However, the law and order has to be WPC.28809/10 2 appropriately preserved. The rights of the petitioners to carry out their activities in accordance with law has to be preserved. However, under the guise of affording protection to such activity, the police are not to interfere with the peaceful agitations and other related activities which the employees are entitled to carry on in accordance with law, maintaining appropriate distance and discipline even in the matter of agitations. For the aforesaid reasons, it is directed that the law and order situation as also peace and public tranquility will be appropriately maintained by the police ensuring appropriate protection to the life and property of the petitioners as also ingress and egress of the establishment etc. so that the business activities of the petitioners is in no manner impaired. The police would also not interfere with any peaceful activities by way of agitations etc. by the private respondents. The petitioners and the private respondents will endeavour to have the matter WPC.28809/10 3 resolved at the earliest appropriately. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.28/09.