IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6376 of 2011(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S. PARAGON HOSPITALS KERALA (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR.A.M. GOPALAN TC 4/1037(2) & (3), KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SHANGUMUGHAM, VALIYATHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008. 3. CI OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. 4. SI OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. 5. WORKING PRESIDENT, PRIVATE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU), MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. 6. GENERAL SECRETARY, G.G. HOSPITAL UNIT OF PRIVATE HOSPITAL WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC) MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. WP(C).No. 6376 of 2011(V) 7. GENERAL SECRETARY PRIVATE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES SANKH (BMS), MEDICAL COLLEGE UNIT, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. 8. DR.G. VELAYUDHAN, 7TH FLOOR, HOSPITAL BUILDING, MURINJAPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. VIPINDAS. R5 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM. R7 BY ADV. SRI.N. NAGARESH. R8 BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6376 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 03/12/2010 IN WP(C) NO. 31729/2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 31729/2010 DATED 13/01/2011. EXT.P3 SERIES: COPY OF THE PLANS PREPARED BY MR.THOMAS PANICKER, THE ARCHITECT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1-4. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R5(b) COLLECTIVELY: COPIES OF THE VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LABOUR OFFICERS. EXT.R5(c) COLLECTIVELY: COPIES OF THE MINUTES OF THE TWO MEETINGS. EXT.R5(d): COPY OF THE SAMPLE TERMINATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R5(e): COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) NO.174/09 DATED 16/12/2009 NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.R7(a): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/01/2011 SUBMITTED TO THE DLO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.6376 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. This petition by the petitioner is for police protection. A brief resume of the events which led to the present situation may be relevant. The 8th respondent, a medical practitioner was running a hospital. He is of advanced age. He agreed with the petitioner to sell the hospital to the petitioner. By documents dated 16.1.2010, the title was transferred. There were certain other stipulations when such transfer took place. The 8th respondent continued to run the hospital, for some period of time. Some renovation work was to be undertaken and the 8th respondent agreed to oversee and supervise the work. 2. The workmen representing respondents 5 to 7 were employed by the 8th respondent. The 8th respondent issued notice dated 15.10.2010 under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act terminating the services of all workmen. It is submitted that some of the workmen have WPC No.6376/2011 2 accepted the notice and amounts without demur. Some have not accepted it. According to the 8th respondent, all the employees have accepted the amounts without demur. 3. Be that as it may, the present grievance of the petitioner as well as the 8th respondent is that employees (whom they describe as former employees of the 8th respondent) represented by respondents 5 to 7 are obstructing the work of renovation of the hospital. Admittedly, the hospital is not functional now. The 8th respondent came earlier to this Court with a petition for police protection. That petition was allowed in part by this Court by Ext.P2 judgment. Observations were made that if necessary, it is for the petitioner to claim police protection. It is accordingly, that the present application has been made by the petitioner. 4. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has not employed any one of the workmen represented by respondents 5 to 7. They were only employees under the 8th respondent. The responsibility is of the 8th respondent to settle the claims of all the workmen employed by him prior to transfer of title. The petitioner can have no WPC No.6376/2011 3 responsibility in respect of such workmen. They have no right to raise any claim against the petitioner or to obstruct the work of renovation of the hospital. Respondents 5 to 7 are illegally causing obstructions to such work of renovation. In these circumstances, appropriate directions may be issued to respondents 1 to 4 to afford protection to the petitioner. Industrial disputes, if any, have got to be settled in accordance with law. Respondents 5 to 7 cannot take law into their hands and cause any obstruction to the work of renovation of the hospital by the petitioner, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. 8th respondent has entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel for the 8th respondent submits that the 8th respondent is responsible for payment of all amounts due to the workmen employed by him prior to transfer of title. He is willing to make such payments. Workmen employed by him cannot have any claim against the transferee, i.e. the petitioner. In these circumstances, the 8th respondent supports the claim of the petitioner. 6. For respondent No.6, there is no representation WPC No.6376/2011 4 now. Respondents 5 and 7 are represented by counsel. According to the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 7, there is no legally acceptable closure of the establishment or transfer. Amounts are due from the 8th respondent prior to alleged transfer. An industrial dispute has been raised with respect to that. Reference has been made of that dispute for adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. But, according to them, there is a subsequent dispute continuing now. Their rights to claim continued employment in the hospital notwithstanding the alleged transfer has not been settled or referred for adjudication. The employees are present in the premises in assertion of their right to continued employment in the hospital. They have various contentions to raise in support of the said claim. They contend that there is no bonafide transfer or closure and that even after the alleged transfer of title, they were actually employed in the hospital. 7. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 submits that the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment are being followed scrupulously. Appropriate orders may be passed, submits WPC No.6376/2011 5 the learned Government Pleader. 8. Transfer of title from the 8th respondent to the petitioner is not seen disputed. To us, it appears to be crucial that it is now conceded that the hospital is not functional and is not working now. The petitioner, the title holder, wants to undertake renovation of the hospital. He has no disputes with the 8th respondent, the transferor. We will assume that the workmen represented by respondents 5 to 7 have valid contentions to advance in the industrial dispute which they want to raise with the 8th respondent and/or the petitioner. Such disputes will have to be resolved in accordance with law. At any rate, the workmen represented by respondents 5 to 7 cannot be permitted to take law into their hands and obstruct by employing violent methods, the renovation work which the petitioner wants to undertake. The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 7 submit that they have no intention to illegally obstruct the renovation work. Their claim is only for amounts due in the past and for enforcement of their right to continue as employees in the hospital even after renovation. WPC No.6376/2011 6 9. We are of the opinion that the said disputes will have to be resolved in accordance with law by resort to the resolution mechanism under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. We do not want to hazard any opinion as to whether any amounts are due to the employees from the 8th respondent. We do not also want to venture any opinion as to whether employees are entitled for continued employment under the petitioner. Those disputes will have to be resolved in accordance with law. 10. But, in any view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in a system wedded to rule or law, respondents 5 to 7 or their members cannot be permitted to take law into their hands and obstruct the work of renovation to the hospital by the petitioner, admittedly, the transferor. Such obstruction, if any, will have to be deterred by deployment of the police force. We are satisfied that this petition can be allowed and relief can be granted to the above limited extent. 11. In the result, a) This writ petition is allowed. WPC No.6376/2011 7 b) Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner for the work of renovation of the hospital purchased by him. c) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits about the disputes between the 8th respondent and his workmen or the workmen and the petitioner. Those disputes, we make it clear, will have to be resolved in accordance with law. d) We further make it clear that the order for police protection hereby granted shall not in any way fetter the rights of the workmen represented by respondents 5 to 7 to hold peaceful demonstrations and agitations outside the premises of the hospital without in any way obstructing ingress and egress to the hospital by the petitioner, the 8th respondent, the petitioner's staff and the workers employed by the petitioner for renovation work. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ WPC No.6376/2011 8 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.6376 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th March, 2011 ORDER Basant, J. Counter affidavits have been filed. Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to make his response. Do the needful in five days. Call on 16.3.2011. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/