C.W.P. No.3956 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.3956 of 2009 Date of Decision.29.09.2011 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited through Sanjeev Mahajan, General Manager (Corporate Relations) and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab through its Secretary (Home), Civil Secretariat (Punjab), Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.2. Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate and Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. C.W.P. No.6734 of 2011 M/s Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. having its registered office at 7-1-27, Ameerpret, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500016 represented through Sh. Savya Sachi, Senior Director .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through its Secretary (Home), Civil Secretariat (Punjab), Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikram Vir Sharda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1 and 6. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.2 and 7. Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate and Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5. C.W.P. No.3956 of 2009 -2- Mr. Apoorva Garg, Advocate for Mr. A.P. Setia, Advocate for respondent No.8. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. In C.W.P. No.6734 of 2011, the petitioners want protection and enforcement of fundamental rights of the workers, who are employed with the petitioner-companies. There is an objection to the maintainability of the petition at the instance of the Medical Representatives' Association contending that an action in writ petition seeking for enforcement of fundamental rights cannot be instituted at the instance of companies, which are registered under the Companies Act. I am not prepared to go into the issue of whether the companies could espouse the cause of their employees. If the grievance is that the Medical Representatives' Associations are indulging in acts, which go beyond the norms of rational and proper behaviour within the factory precincts, there shall be no difficulty for the Court to observe that for any criminal activity which any of the members of Medical Representatives Associations are indulging in, the respective companies shall be at liberty to make a complaint before the appropriate police authority and seek for redressal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that it is not merely the pursuit of remedies through criminal process but they want a peremptive action by the State to ensure that the Union workers C.W.P. No.3956 of 2009 -3- did not create a state of terror within the factory premises of the respective companies or wherever they work. 3. Passing an order that cannot be effectively supervised by the Court will be a futile exercise. As and when complaints emerge from the petitioners-companies, on all specific instances of criminal behaviour, the State shall be sensitive and take appropriate action. It is a living reality that any collective action of workers or officers through an Association is perceived as troublesome or irksome in the smooth functioning of companies. It is in the spirit of togetherness that wheels of industry could go on. I can make no more than an exhortation to both parties, which are at loggerheads that they shall settle the differences and move towards greater productivity in the factory premises and outside, so that the fruits of labour and production are available to them in greater measure for distribution. A protection for life and liberty of the workers is an issue that will be considered on a case to case basis when such complaints are brought before the State authority. 4. Learned Senior Counsel in C.W.P. No.3956 of 2009 appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that petitioner is not facing the threat from their own staff but from associations who are not in any way connected with the petitioner. According to him, they are prevented from doing the work and the activities of the Association border on illegality and the State is unresponsive. To the petitioner's grievance, I can do no more than to give a direction to the police authorities that they should ensure that the appropriate action is taken whenever a complaint is brought at the instance of the petitioner in C.W.P. No.3956 of 2009, expressing any obstruction faced in the duties of the workers. C.W.P. No.3956 of 2009 -4- The police shall keep appropriate vigil in hospitals and other places where there could be work done by the employees of the petitioner- company and who may feel threatened by the actions of the Medical Representatives Unions. 5. Learned respective counsel for the State of Punjab and Haryana affirm that they will give such protection as situations might warrant as and when specific instances of wrong behaviour are brought before them. 6. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 29, 2011 Pankaj*