IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 8055 of 2010(F) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST (INDIA)LTD, SOUTH MANANCHIRA ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673001. REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR-IN-CHARGE, BY ADV. SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP SMT.UMA GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. COMTRUST WAVING FACTORY, WORKERS ACTION COMMITTEE, SOUTH MANANCHIRA ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE STATION HOUSE, OFFICER, NAGARAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR FOR R1 SRI.MANU GOVIND FOR R1 SMT.B.MEERA FOR R1 R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.19.8.2010 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE TRADE UNIONS DATED 15.10.2008. EXT.P2COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 22.11.2009. EXT.P3COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT APPEARED IN METRO MANORAMA DATED 4.3.2010. EXT.P4COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT APPEARED IN METRO MANORAMA DATED 5.3.2010. EXT.P5COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.3.2010. EXT.P6COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.3.2010. EXT.P7COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.1.2009 SIGNED BY THE UNIONS ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHARGE. EXT.P8COPY OF THE CLOSURE NOTICE DATED 29.12.2008. EXT.P9COPY OF ONE OF THE PROPOSALS OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.7.2010. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1B COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 12.02.2010. //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 8055 OF 2010 F ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th August, 2010. JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 2 and 3 to afford necessary police protection to the petitioner, its staff, officials and its Directors for the free ingress and egress from the premises of the petitioner Company. ii) Declare that the first respondent and workers owing allegiance to the said respondent have no right whatsoever in constructing a tent/hut in the premises of the petitioner. Iii) Declare that first respondent and workers owing allegiance to the said respondent have no right whatsoever in indulging in criminal activities against the interest of the petitioner Company. W.P.(C).NO.8055 OF 2010 F 2 iv) Declare that the first respondent and workers owing allegiance to the said respondent have no right to resort to unlawful means of agitation in and outside the factory premises.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is running three factories. Ext.P2 is a settlement between five trade unions and the petitioner. It is stated that a few workers are obstructing and they have put up a tent. A Counter Affidavit is filed by the first respondent to which a Reply Affidavit also is filed. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. It is the case of the first respondent that they are only carrying on peaceful agitation and having regard to the place where the tent is located and having regard to the present position of the Company, no prejudice will be caused to the Company. However, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has a right to access to the Company and if at all, the first respondent is aggrieved by Ext.P2, the proper remedy is to W.P.(C).NO.8055 OF 2010 F 3 take it up before the Authorities under law. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we feel that the following order can be passed and the Writ Petition is disposed of: Learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent will re-locate the tent at a place where there is no obstruction to any of the Gates and also without obstructing the entry to any building. He would submit that this will be done within ten days from today. If the first respondent does not do so within the time as submitted, the second respondent will inspect the site and indicate a place where there is no obstruction to any of the Gates or entry to any of the buildings, so that the peaceful agitation can go on only from that site. We also direct respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate protection to the staff, officials and Directors of the petitioner Company so that free ingress and egress to the premises of the Company are not obstructed. Of course, we further make it clear that this will be subject to the further W.P.(C).NO.8055 OF 2010 F 4 condition that under cover of this Judgment, the petitioner shall not be permitted to remove any machinery from the premises of the Company without permission of this Court. We further direct that respondents 2 and 3 will see that there is no further tent or hut put up by the first respondent within the factory premises. It is open to the petitioner to seek modification of this Judgment if there is a change of circumstances. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner will produce a copy of this Judgment before respondents 2 and 3 for due compliance. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, kbk. JUDGE //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE W.P.(C).NO.8055 OF 2010 F 5