PLAKATTU GRANITE INDUSTRIES Vs. SUPDT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a limited company operating an industrial unit. According to the petitioner, for the purpose of loading and unloading materials, lorries are being hired. Recently, the drivers and cleaners attached to the said lorries demanded for regularisation. The petitioner could not concede to their demands. Thereupon, the workers attached to the said lorries began to obstruct the permanent workers of the company. On 15.4.98, a complaint was so lodged against the company by one among the workers. According to the petitioner, it is unable to provide employment to the workers attached to such hired lorries. Such workers have moved the conciliation officer and conciliation proceedings are pending. The petitioner is regularly deputing an officer to participate in the conciliation conference representing the management On the other hand, the union the 3rd respondent has walked out of the conciliation conference. It is because of the obstruction caused by the members of the 3rd respondent, who are also the workers attached to the hired lorries. The petitioner is unable to continue the functioning of his industrial unit. He seeks police protection for the smooth functioning of his industrial unit He also has approached this Court seeking a direction to afford adequate police protection to the life of the Directors of the Company, its employees, to the customers and also for the peaceful conduct of the business of the petitioner's company.

(2.) The 3rd respondent union submits that an agreement is already subsisting between the petitioners, and the said union and other unions representing the workmen as seen from Ext. R3(a). As per the said settlement enhanced wages are being paid to the workmen. But it is not being given to the lorry drivers and cleaners. Therefore, they rightly demanded wages payable as per Ext. R3(a) settlement which is being denied by the Management. Therefore, they are resorting to peaceful agitation to win over the demands for giving effect to Ext. R3(a) settlement reached between the Management and the workmen. Apart from that, there is no force employed by the members of the 3rd respondent It is also submitted that the petitioner Company is employing about ten workers but the said workers are not being paid the wages in terms of Ext. R3(a). It is also contended that the petitioners did not wait for any single day after filing a petition before the police to file this Original Petition. On that ground it is submitted that there is no bona fides in moving this Original Petition. It is also the contention of the 3rd respondent that there is no whisper in the Original Petition with regard to Ext. R3(a) settlement. The management cannot, by rendering police protection be allowed to flout Ext. R3(a) settlement to deny the workmen the benefits arising out of the settlement Even the protection rendered in term of the interim order had interfered with the right of the workman to freely and peacefully agitate to win over their demands. Therefore, no police protection shall be granted.

(3.) Even assuming that the case put forward by the 3rd respondent Union is correct, they cannot obstruct the willing workman. They are absolutely free to launch strike and make demands of their choice and also to persuade other workmen to follow their suit and to join with them for agitation or strike. If there is willing workmen that workmen cannot be prevented from working by the striking workers.