AVTEC LIMITED Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KRISHNAGIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner has filed the above writ petition for direction against respondents 1 to 3, who are the Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police, Hosur, Krishnagiri District, to give full police protection to the petitioner Company against the alleged illegal action of the respondents 4 to 12, who are the members of the Union of workers belonging to the writ petitioner and other workers, so as to enable the petitioner Company to enjoy the order of interim injunction granted by the Sub-Court, Hosur in I.A.No.100 of 2007 in O.S.No.54 of 2007 on 09.06.2007, which was made absolute on 21.11.2007.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up for admission, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate, who has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 to find out the actual position of the case. On 07.12.2007, the learned Government Advocate, on oral instructions from the second respondent has submitted that in the writ petitioner's factory there has been a dispute between the Management and its employees regarding the status of alleged temporary workers. It was also submitted that in the Campus of the factory one Sub-Inspector of Police and five Police Constables were posted round-the-clock to give protection. He also submitted that en route the place of manufacture and supply, 20 Policemen were posted for the purpose of giving protection. He also submitted that in order to have a peaceful atmosphere, a suggestion was made by respondents 1 to 3 to the writ petitioner to move the materials from the factory twice a week and in such an event, the petitioner Management can give an advance information to the second respondent, so as to enable the second respondent to give adequate protection and maintain law and order. The said submission made by the learned Government Advocate was recorded and the writ petition was disposed of with direction to the second respondent to give police protection in the above terms as and when the petitioner gives advance information. Since the said statement of the Government Advocate was recorded and the writ petition was disposed of, there was no necessity to hear respondents 4 to 12. The following was the order passed in W.P.No.36345 of 2007 on 07.12.2007.

(3.) THE writ petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, supplying products to Bharath Earth Movers Limited (BEML), which is an establishment under the Ministry of Defence, Union of India. THE 4th respondent is a registered Trade Union of the petitioner Company and respondents 5 to 12 are the previous and present Office Bearers of the 4th respondent Union. According to the writ petitioner, there has been some industrial dispute between the Management and the Union and the same is pending. THE Union office bearers and other members went on strike from 15.11.2007, which according to the petitioner is illegal, since there was no proper notice given and it was in violation of the wage settlement. 5(a). According to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 12 have been causing disturbance to the Management by not allowing the other willing employees as well as staff to enter into the factory premises about which several complaints were filed to respondents 1 to 3 from April,2007 and specific complaints were made to give protection on 19.10.2007 and 25.10.2007. Since there were no effective steps taken by respondents 1 to 3, the writ petitioner has filed O.S.No.54 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Court, Hosur for permanent injunction restraining the 4th respondent and its members from obstructing and preventing the ingress and egress of men and materials from and to the factory and from holding any violent demonstrations and meetings, shouting defamatory slogans, etc. within 300 meters from the petitioner's factory. 5(b). THE petitioner has also filed I.A.No.100 of 2007 for temporary injunction. THE trial Court, on 09.06.2007, has passed an order of injunction against 4th respondent and its Union members from holding any violent demonstrations and meetings, shouting defamatory slogans, etc. within 200 meters from the petitioner's factory and from gheraoing the management staff, officers, apprentices and from preventing vehicle with finished, unfinished, semi-finished products, raw materials and fixtures and other things from entering into the factory or leaving the factory. 5(c). After hearing both sides, the interim injunction granted as stated above was made absolute by order dated 21.11.2007. After the said order, the writ petitioner has once again approached respondents 1 to 3 for giving protection to enforce the injunction order granted by the Civil Court. According to the petitioner, even after the order of injunction, respondents 4 to 12 have involved in illegal activities by erecting tent within 20 meters from the factory main gate; assembling in groups and shouting abusive and threatening slogans in front of the gate; threatening and intimidating the staff while entering and leaving the factory; indulging in stopping the vehicles and checking the personal belongings, bags etc. of the staff while leaving the factory; assaulting essential service suppliers and thereby paralyzing the functioning of the factory; and causing damages to the vehicles by breaking the wind shield etc. which bring materials to the company. It was in the circumstance that in spite of the injunction being made absolute after hearing respondents 4 to 12, the said respondents have indulged in the said activities, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.