JOYS PALACE Vs. LODGE AND HOTEL MAZDOOR SANGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issue of directions to the 2nd respondent to afford police protection for the peaceful and orderly conduct of the petitioner's business - of running a three star hotel. THE 1st respondent, a trade union of workmen, is allegedly causing obstruction to such peaceful conduct of the petitioner's business.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the petitioner was obliged to close down a bar which was run in the hotel. Consequently the workmen had to be terminated. Complying with all the legal requirements and formalities retrenchment was effected. The workmen represented by the 1st respondent are not accepting the said retrenchment. They are causing unnecessary and unjustified obstruction to the running of the business. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE 1st respondent has entered appearance through a counsel. THE learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that all the allegations are untrue. THE services of the workmen have been terminated as a measure of retaliation, as they did not accept certain terms arbitrarily insisted by the management. THE workmen had joined the union and the union is espousing the cause of the workmen, who have been illegally terminated. It is incorrect to say that the workmen are resorting to illegal methods or unjustified obstruction against the conduct of the business of the petitioner. An industrial dispute has been raised. THE authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act have initiated conciliation proceedings. Pending such conciliation proceedings, peaceful demonstration is held in front of the petitioner's establishment.No obstruction whatsoever is caused against willing workers or against guests who are coming to the establishment. THE learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that it can be recorded categorically that the 1st respondent and the workmen will not resort to the course of illegally obstructing the willing workmen or the guests of the hotel. In these circumstances, no directions under Article 226 are liable to be issued, submits the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.