S.S. HYUNDAI Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction from the part of respondents 1 to 3 in affording protection to its sales and service centre in Mavelikkara. The petitioner is an authorised Hyundai dealer and it is operating a sales and service centre in Mavelikkara from 2009. During June 2011, the petitioner appointed respondents 4 and 5 as sales executives in the said unit. Right from the initial period of their appointment, respondents 4 and 5 are engaged in creating trouble in the petitioner's business concern. Without discharging their duty, respondents 4 and 5 were instigating their co-workers to strike without any justifiable reason and they were disobeying the directions issued by their superior officers and by the management. Due to the continuous illegal activities being committed by respondents 4 and 5, the management has issued showcause notice to them to which they have not responded. Domestic enquiry was ordered against them. On 2/11/2012, the enquiry officer held her first sitting in the petitioner's business premises, respondents 4 and 5 and their associates created a terror by blocking the vehicles, employees and customers from entering into the sales and service centre and by threatening the management and staff and by completely obstructing the functioning of the unit. Thereafter, on 12/11/2012, they completely obstructed the functioning of the unit. The same situation is continuing thereafter. In spite of specific request being made to respondents 1 to 3, they are not providing protection for the functioning of the unit.

(3.) WE heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and the learned Government Pleader.