IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6048 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ HLL LIFE CARE LIMITED, HLL BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012, REPRESENTED BY COMPANY SECRETARY AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. HINDUSTAN LATEX EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU), HLL LIFE CARE LIMITED, PEROORKADA FACTORY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. HINDUSTAN LATEX WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC), HLL LIFE CARE LIMITED, PEROORKADA FACTORY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, S.NANDAKUMARAN NAIR. 3. HINDUSTAN LATEX LABOUR UNION (AITUC) HLL LIFE CARE LIMITED, PEROORKADA FACTORY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AJAY K.PRAKASH. 4. HINDUSTAN LATEX DEMOCRATIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, HLL LIFE CARE LIMITED, PEROORKADA FACTORY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY D.REJENDRAN. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 TO R4 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SMT.HENA BAHULEYAN R5 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.6048/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 8/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OFM/S. HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS. P2 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/1/2011 FROM RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 TO THE PETITIONER. P3 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15/1/2011 from the PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4. P4 COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 11/2/2011 SUBMITTEDBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SATED 22/2/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/1/2011SUBMITTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, JOINT ACTION COUNCIL OF TRADE UNIONS, TRIVANDRUM, TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HLL LIFECARE LTD, TRIVANDRUM-5 R1(B) COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20/1/2011 NO.HL/HR/IR/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(O), HLL LIFECARE LIMITED, TO THE GENERAL SECRETARY,KLEU/HL WC/HLLU/HLDEA. R1(C) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8/2/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, HINDUSTAN LATEX WORKMEN'S CONGRESS, TRIVANDRUM-5 TO THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL, TVM.) R1(D) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8/2/2011SUBMITTEDBY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, HINDUSTAN LATEX LABOUR UNION(AITUC) TO THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL,TRIVANDRUM) R1(E) COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.8(26)11/ALC-TVM DATED 23/2/2011 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, TVM,TO GENERAL SECRETARY, HINDUSTAN LATEX WORKMEN'S CONGRESS,TVM-5 R1(F) COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT HLL LIFECARE LTD. DATED 28/2/2011 TO THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM. R1(G) COPY OF THE MINUTESOF THE MEETING HELD ON 28/2/2011 NO.8(27)2011/ALC- TVM. HINDUSTAN LATEX WORKERS CONGRESS(INTUC). TVM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.6048 of 2011-E ***************************** Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 5 and 6 to afford police protection to the petitioner against objectionable acts of respondents 1 to 4, who are not permitting the petitioner to shift an electronic testing machine from the Peroorkada unit of the petitioner to its Kakkanad unit. 2. The petitioner is a central Government industrial unit. Costly electronic testing machines are made use of at the Peroorkada and Kakkanad units of the petitioner company. According to the petitioner, there are 8 electronic testing machines at Peroorkada unit and 2 at Kakkanad unit. They are very costly testing machines. For the proper organisation of the work of the petitioner company, the petitioner company has decided to shift one of the 8 electronic testing machines at Peroorkada to the Kakkanad unit of the company. The company had made arrangements for the dismantling and shifting of the W.P(C) No.6048 of 2011-E 2 testing machine. But due to the unlawful and wanton objections and obstructions of respondents 1 to 4, the petitioner could not allegedly carry out the said operation. Twice attempts were made, but shifting could not take place. According to the petitioner company, there is urgent necessity to shift the testing machine and respondents 1 to 4 have no right to raise any objections/obstructions to such shifting. It is a managerial decision of the company and workmen of the 4 unions, ie. respondents 1 to 4, have no right for obstructing the same. It is with these averments that this petition has been filed. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 have entered appearance through a counsel. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submits that the workmen have serious objections against the shifting of the testing machine to Kakkanad. According to respondents 1 to 4, this would lead to reduction of scope of employment at Peroorkada unit. Consequently the conditions of service of the workmen at Peroorkada will be affected. That is the objection of respondents 1 to 4 and the workmen. In the counter statement filed by respondents 1 to 4, this objection is highlighted. It is also pointed out that on the complaint made by the unions, the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act have already W.P(C) No.6048 of 2011-E 3 commenced conciliation proceedings. The conciliation proceedings was initially posted to 28.02.2011. The same was adjourned to 08.03.2011. When this petition came up earlier for hearing the case, the case was posted to a date after 08.03.2011, so that the parties can make attempts to settle the dispute before this date of posting. It is submitted that the matter is not settled and that the proceedings before the conciliation officer is continuing. The next date of posting is 05.04.2011, it is submitted. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an early hearing and disposal. We are satisfied that it is not necessary to wait till 05.04.2011 or thereafter to dispose of this petition. Accordingly this Writ Petition was taken up for hearing and disposal. 5. It is pertinent and crucial to note that on behalf of the petitioner it is stipulated unambiguously that the shifting of one of the 8 testing machines to the Kakkanad unit will not result in any disturbance or alteration in the conditions of service of the workmen. It is further undertaken unambiguously that such a shifting will not lead to any transfer of employees of the petitioner company from the Peroorkada to the Kakkanad unit. W.P(C) No.6048 of 2011-E 4 We record these submissions and we must say, these submissions/undertaking have influenced us considerably to come to our conclusion in this judgment. 6. Shifting one testing machine from the Peroorkada to Kakkanad unit falls within the sweep of the managerial prerogative available to the petitioner to organise its resources appropriately. Inasmuch as there is no threat or risk of any alteration in the conditions of service of workmen or any adverse impact on the continuance of the workmen on the same terms and conditions, we are satisfied that the objections raised against the moving of the machinery cannot be held to be justified. We are not persuaded to agree that it is necessary to wait till proceedings before the conciliation authority is completed after 05.04.11. 7. We are in these circumstances satisfied that the prayer of the petitioner is perfectly justified. Respondents 1 to 4 have no right to raise any objections. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that police protection can be afforded to the petitioner as prayed for. W.P(C) No.6048 of 2011-E 5 8. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) Respondents 5 and 6 are permitted to afford adequate and sufficient police protection for the petitioner to shift one electronic testing machine from its Peroorkada unit to its Kakkanad unit against any obstruction which workmen of the petitioner company represented by respondents 1 to 4 may raise against such shifting. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/