IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7295 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHAJI MICHAEL, GENERAL MANAGER, ALUKKAS TOURIST HOME, THRISSUR - 1. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR SMT.SABINA JAYAN SMT.MINI.V.A. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (DY.SP) OF POLICE LAW AND ORDER, THRISSUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 3. K.V.SUDHEESH, KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PO MANALUR, THRISSUR. 4. RAJESH V.P., VELUTHEDATHU HOUSE, THANNIKATTUSSERY P.O., OLLUR, THRISSUR. 680 322. 5. MANIKANDAN M.K., MANIGRIHAN HOUSE, THOYAKKAVU, MANALUR, THRISSUR - 680513. 6. RATHEESH M.R., MARUTHUVELIYIL HOUSE, PARLIKAD P.O., VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR - 680623. WPC 7295/2011 7. SHENE N.S., NELLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SWARGA NAGAR, P.O.ALAPPAT, 680641, THRISSUR 8. JOSHY SEBASTIAN, KULAMBALLIYIL HOUSE, MULLOORKARA P.O., VADAKKANCHERY 680583. 9. THE LODGE AND HOTEL MAZDOOR SANGHAM (BMS) VIVEKANANDA ROAD, THIRUVAMBADY, THRISSUR 680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, P.V.SUBRAHMANIAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI C.M.CHARISMA ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH FOR R9 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 7295/2011 WPC. 7295/2011 APPENDIX EXT.P1: TRUE COPCY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 9/11/2010 FROM THE 9TH RESPONDENT TO THE AST.LABOUR FOFICER, THRISSUR. EXT.P1A TRUE COPCCY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17/12/2011(2010) FROM THE 9TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1140/2010 FO THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION EXT.P3: TRUE COPCY OF THE FIR IN CRIME ENO. 315/2011 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION EXT.P4: TRUE COPCY OF PETITION DATED 3/3/2011 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/1/2011 FO THE ENQUIRY FOFICER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ADJOURNEMENT APPLICATION DATED 17/1/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO TH ENQUIRY FOFICER. EXT.P6A TRUE COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION DT.18/1/2011 SUBMSITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXT.P6B TRUE COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION DT.19/1/2011 SUBMSITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE ENQUIRY OFFICER EXT.P6C TRUE COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION DT.19/1/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE ENQUIRY OFFICER EXT.P6D TRUE COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION DT.18/1/2011 SUBMSITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE ENQUIRY OFFICER EXT.P6E TRUE COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION DT.19/1/2011 SUBMSITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE ENQUIRY OFFICER ks. R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C) NO. 7295 OF 2011 ============================ Dated this the 15th day of March 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2 against culpable contumacious and violent acts which are allegedly committed by respondents 3 to 9 and apprehended from respondents 3 to 9. The petitioner runs a hotel. Respondents 3 to 8 are employees of a hotel. Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against respondents 3 to 8. Respondent No.9 is a Trade Union representing respondents 3 to 8. According to the petitioner, in retaliation against disciplinary action taken by the petitioner against his employees, respondents 3 to 9 are WPC 7295/2011 -2- indulging in vexatious, intimidatory and culpable conduct. Crimes have already been registered. Respondents 3 to 9 are guilty of gross violence. In these circumstances directions may be issued to respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection to the petitioner, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 demand had been made by 9th respondent union on behalf of the employees. 2. Respondent No.9 has entered appearance through counsel. He claims to represent respondents 3 to 8 also. Learned counsel for the 9th respondent submits that the allegations are totally false. As a retaliation against the submission of the charter of demands, Ext.P1, vexatious action has been initiated by the petitioner against his employees who are members of the 9th respondent union. Disciplinary proceedings have been vexatiously initiated against the members of respondent No.9 union. Respondent No.9 and its members are not indulging in any WPC 7295/2011 -3- contumacious, culpable and violent acts. Those allegations are false. They are only exercising their right to hold peaceful demonstration against the objectionable responses of the petitioner on receipt of Ext.P1. No directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are liable to be issued. The attempt of the petitioner is to steal a march over the employees and the union who have submitted Ext.P1 demand. In these circumstances, petition may be dismissed, prays the learned counsel for the 9th respondent. 3. The learned government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the police shall take necessary action, if there is any threat to the person or life of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the nature of the alleged acts indulged in by the party respondents as revealed from Exts.P2 and P3, effective and specific directions may be issued to respondents 1 and 2. WPC 7295/2011 -4- 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. While the right of respondents 3 to 9 to stage peaceful demonstration in support of their demands before their employer cannot be denied, it will certainly have to be ensured that the person and life of the petitioner are protected. It will also have to be ensured that the petitioner's right to conduct the business is also not interfered with illegally. Appropriate directions subject to appropriate safeguards can be issued, we are satisfied. 6. In the result, a)this petition is allowed. b)Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to the life and person of the petitioner and also to his activity of running the tourist home. c)It is specifically observed that respondents 3 to 9 shall have the right to stage peaceful demonstrations, but it shall be ensured scrupulously that ingress and egress to the premises of the petitioner by the petitioner, other WPC 7295/2011 -5- employees held on its rolls and the customers are not in any way obstructed by respondents 3 to 9. Sd/- R.BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. True copy P.S. TO JUDGE