IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3006 of 2011(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOYS PALACE, T.B.ROAD, THRISSUR-680021, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. LODGE AND HOTEL MAZDOOR SANGHAM (BMS), SHORANUR ROAD, THIRUVAMBADY, THRISSUR-680022, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-682001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHARISMA FOR R2 ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3006 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION ORDER WITH THE ENCLOSED CHEQUE ISSUED TO KISHORE K.G. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION ORDER WITH THE ENCLOSED CHEQUE ISSUED TO SIVADASAN K.M. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION ORDER WITH THE ENCLOSED CHEQUE ISSUED TO SATHEESH. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION ORDER WITH THE ENCLOSED CHEQUE ISSUED TO GIREESHKUMAR. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION ORDER WITH THE ENCLOSED CHEQUE ISSUED TO BHASKARAN K.K. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION ORDER WITH THE ENCLOSED CHEQUE ISSUED TO PRASHEED KUMAR I.K. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION ORDER WITH THE ENCLOSED CHEQUE ISSUED TO SHYAM S. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION ORDER WITH THE ENCLOSED CHEQUE ISSUED TO SURESH V.S. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION ORDER WITH THE ENCLOSED CHEQUE ISSUED TO SUBHASH P.C. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION ORDER WITH THE ENCLOSED CHEQUE ISSUED TO SANAL P.V. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION ORDER WITH THE ENCLOSED CHEQUE ISSUED TO AJEESH PANICKER. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION ORDER WITH THE ENCLOSED CHEQUE ISSUED TO ANEESH P. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF STRIKE NOTICE DATED 25.01.11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 27.01.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE FUNCTION. EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE FUNCTION PROSPECTUS. EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE FUNCTION PROSPECTUS. EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28.01.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.3006 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issue of directions to the 2nd respondent to afford police protection for the peaceful and orderly conduct of the petitioner's business - of running a three star hotel. The 1st respondent, a trade union of workmen, is allegedly causing obstruction to such peaceful conduct of the petitioner's business. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was obliged to close down a bar which was run in the hotel. Consequently the workmen had to be terminated. Complying with all the legal requirements and formalities retrenchment was effected. The workmen represented by the 1st respondent are not accepting the said retrenchment. They are causing unnecessary and unjustified obstruction to the running of the business. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. When the petition was admitted on 28.01.2011, interim direction was issued to respondent No.2, a police official, W.P(C) No.3006 of 2011 2 “to afford adequate police protection against any obstruction for ingress and egress of the guests and willing workmen held on the rolls of the petitioner till the next date of posting”. 4. That interim order has been extended and is remaining in force now. 5. The 1st respondent has entered appearance through a counsel. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that all the allegations are untrue. The services of the workmen have been terminated as a measure of retaliation, as they did not accept certain terms arbitrarily insisted by the management. The workmen had joined the union and the union is espousing the cause of the workmen, who have been illegally terminated. It is incorrect to say that the workmen are resorting to illegal methods or unjustified obstruction against the conduct of the business of the petitioner. An industrial dispute has been raised. The authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act have initiated conciliation proceedings. Pending such conciliation proceedings, peaceful demonstration is held in front of the petitioner's establishment. No obstruction whatsoever is caused against W.P(C) No.3006 of 2011 3 willing workers or against guests who are coming to the establishment. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that it can be recorded categorically that the 1st respondent and the workmen will not resort to the course of illegally obstructing the willing workmen or the guests of the hotel. In these circumstances, no directions under Article 226 are liable to be issued, submits the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has a further grievance that in spite of the interim order granted by this Court, effective protection is not made available. In spite of the interim order granting protection, there have been unjustified obstruction by the 1st respondent and the workmen. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand submits that the interim order granted on 28.01.2011, which has been extended thereafter and is in force now, has been implemented effectively. The same shall be implemented effectively hereafter also. In these circumstances, the learned Government Pleader takes the stand that the interim order can be made absolute. The same shall be effectively implemented, submits the learned Government Pleader. W.P(C) No.3006 of 2011 4 7. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, we are satisfied that the interim order dated 28.01.2011 can now be made absolute with specific direction to the 2nd respondent to effectively implement the said direction to afford police protection against any obstruction by the 1st respondent or workmen represented by the 1st respondent for ingress and egress of the guests and willing workmen held on the rolls of the petitioner. 8. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/