IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1211 of 2011(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE PATTAMBI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.585, P.O.PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679303 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. V.P.VELAYUDHAN, S/O.MADAMBI, VALIYAVEETILPADI, MUTHUTHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.PIN- 678 001 2. KAMALAKSHI, W/O.VELAYUDHAN, VALIYAVEETILPADI, MUTHUTHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.PIN- 678 001 3. MADA, S/O.MADAMBI, VALIYAVEETILPADI, MUTHUTHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.PIN- 678 001 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD.PIN- 678 001 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHORNUR.PIN- 679 121 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION.PIN- 679 303 R4 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.1211/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT. P2 COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED 16/05/2010 CIRCULATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. P4 COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED 16/11/2010. P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI DATED 27/12/2010 ALONG WITH ITS ACKNOWLEDGMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 1211 of 2011-B ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner is a Service Co-operative Bank. The 1st respondent is a former (dismissed) employee of the said Bank. Respondents 2 and 3 are the wife and brother respectively of the said dismissed employee. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 4 to 6 to afford police protection to the petitioner/Bank against illegal, wanton, contumacious and violent conduct of respondents 1 to 3. 2. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent was dismissed as early as in 2006. No industrial dispute has been raised and there is no proceedings initiated to challenge the validity of the termination of employment. But after about 4 W.P.(C) No. 1211 of 2011 -: 2 :- years of such termination, in December, 2010 respondents 1 to 3 are resorting to the objectionable contumacious and violent conduct of obstructing the customers of the Bank from coming to the Bank. Respondents 1 to 3 enter the premises unjustifiably. They block the staircase, thereby virtually interfering with the ingress and egress to the Bank by the Bank authorities, Bank's employees and the Bank's customers. The short prayer is that police may be directed to afford protection to the petitioner against such contumacious and violent conduct on the part of respondents 1 to 3. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 have been served; but they have not chosen to enter appearance. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that in the perception of respondents 4 to 6 there is no threat posed to the working of the petitioner establishment by the conduct of respondents 1 to 3. They are not obstructing the egress and ingress to the Bank. They are not resorting to any violent conduct. It is true that they are agitating against the termination of the 1st respondent and are claiming amounts from the Bank which are allegedly due to the 1st respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank contests the assertions made by the learned Government Pleader. Ingress W.P.(C) No. 1211 of 2011 -: 3 :- and egress to the Bank is substantially interrupted. The Bank is not permitted to transact business in peace. Respondents 1 to 3 are trespassing into the premises of the Bank. The staircase is being obstructed. It is, in these circumstances, that directions under Art.226 of the Constitution are claimed, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. Undoubtedly, respondent No.1 and his relatives, respondents 2 and 3, have the legal rights in our democracy to raise objections and to demonstrate against the conduct of the petitioner/Bank against which they have objection. But respondents 1 to 3 have got to ensure that their rights to peacefully demonstrate does not offend the working of the Bank. Respondents 1 to 3 have not entered appearance. But it appears that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the police officials as to the manner in which respondents 1 to 3 are performing the alleged demonstration. We are satisfied that appropriate directions deserve to be issued. We do, however, take note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents 4 to 6, that if there is any obstruction to the working of the petitioner/Bank, if there is any trespass into the Bank by respondents 1 to 3 and if the ingress and egress is blocked by W.P.(C) No. 1211 of 2011 -: 4 :- the presence of respondents 1 to 3 on the staircase, necessary action shall be taken to abate such action. 6. We accept that submission of the learned Government Pleader. We accordingly allow this writ petition in part to the above extent. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge