1 WP-5480-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5480 OF 2010 M/s. Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd. ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. J. P. Cama with Mr. P. N. Anaokar and Mr. R. D. Oka for Petitioner. Mr. S. N. Patil – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 05, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the Order of the Industrial Court dated 5th July 2010 whereby the respondents-union and the members of the respondents union were directed not to obstruct movement of any person and free movement of any goods including household goods and articles; as well as not to obstruct free movement of any vehicle into 2 WP-5480-10 and out of the factory / company, the police are unable to provide the necessary protection to the petitioner to carry on the above referred activities mentioned in the Order. It is submitted that time and again the petitioner has to approach this Court for necessary directions to the Police Department to provide necessary, adequate protection to the petitioner for the purpose of carrying out the activities which are permitted by the Order dated 5th July 2010 passed by the Industrial Court. It is also contended that concerned Police Station Officer was approached time and again in this regard, however adequate steps were not taken by the Police Department to provide necessary protection / security to the petitioner company and its employees working in the company and residing in the premises of the company. It is therefore prayed that necessary directions in this regard be given to the concerned Police Station Officer. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader on the other hand has submitted that after the above referred Order passed by the Industrial Court, the police protection has been provided to the company, however, the number of police personnel deployed were only two. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that communication is already forwarded to the petitioner company by the Police Station Officer Mr. Jadhav, whereby the petitioner company is informed that as and when the 3 WP-5480-10 police protection is required, the Police Station Officer may be informed in this regard including the number of police personnel necessary for security. It is contended that the petitioner company is also requested to inform the Police Station Officer in this regard at least two days prior to the date on which such protection is necessary. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that the adequate police protection shall be provided to the company and its employees those who are working with the company and residing within the premises of the company, to carry on the activities mentioned in the Order passed by the Industrial Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the total number of workers are about 76 in number and therefore the Police Station Officer be directed to provide requisite protection or security considering the number of workers and should provide the protection till the Order of the Industrial Court is in existence without insisting upon formal request to be made to the Police Station Officer in this regard by petitioner every time. 6. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsels and also perused the Order dated 5th July 2010 passed by the 4 WP-5480-10 Industrial Court, which reads thus: “The order dated 11.06.2010 below Exhibit U-5 stands extended. The respondents and the members of the respondent union shall not obstruct movement of any person and further, shall not obstruct free movement of any goods including household goods and the articles. The respondents and the members shall also not obstruct free movement of any vehicle. Needless to say that the complainant company shall not remove the goods or other product of the factory without following the applicable provisions of law and rule. It is no doubt true that the Order of the Industrial Court directs the respondents and the members of its union not to obstruct movement of any person and the petitioner is entitled to carry on free movement in respect of any goods including household goods and articles except the petitioner is not entitled to remove the goods or other products of the factory without following the applicable provisions of law and rules. In view of the said Order, we see no reason why the concerned Police Station Officer should not provide the adequate protection and security to the petitioner and its employees those who are working in the company and residing within the premises of the company on day to day basis for the purpose of carrying out activities which are permitted by the Industrial Court by virtue of the Order 5 WP-5480-10 dated 5th July 2010. 7. We therefore direct the Police Station Officer, Roha Police Station, to provide the appropriate police protection / security on payment of requisite charges to the petitioner company and its employees those who are working with the company and residing within the premises of the company for the purpose of carrying out the activities mentioned in the Order dated 5.7.2010 of the Industrial Court. It will not be necessary for the petitioner company to approach the Police Authorities in this regard on day to day basis. The Police Station Officer should provide security or deploy the police personnel which should be adequate to take care of the law and order problem on the spot, while considering this aspect, the Police Station Officer should take into consideration that the total number of workers were / are 76 in number. We direct the Police Officer to implement our directions immediately. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. Parties to act on copy of this Order duly authenticated by the Registry. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)