Judgment :- V. RAMASWAMF, O.C.J. 1. By consent of both parties, the writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The writ appeal has been filed under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent after obtaining the leave of this Court as the appellant Sangam was not a party to the proceedings in W.P. No. 10123 of 1985 against which this appeal has been filed. That writ petition was filed by the first respondent against two police officials, who are respondents 2 and 3 herein, praying for a writ of Mandamus directing them to give police protection for taking out their bases from the garage and aid the petitioner first respondent herein to run them on their respective routes. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a settlement under S. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in violation of the said settlement, certain workers were employed and certain other persons were not employed. In respect of the same, the workers went on strike and prevented the first respondent, who is a transport operator, from taking out the route buses from the garage and plying them on the routes. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition was filed, seeking for police protection. Learned counsel for the appellant, relying on certain reported decisions, contended that the workers have gone on a strike and the very effect of the strike resorted to by them will be very much weakened if the first respondent is permitted to ply the vehicles on their respective routes, and since there is no allegation of violence or that the workers areas indulging in unlawful acts, police protection ought not to have been given. In support of this contention, learned counsel has railed on the decision reported in Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd. v. Simpson and Group Companies Union 1. In that case, the learned Judge observed as follows:— “If cessation of work is the result of strike, it is not possible to lend the support of this Court to stultify the result of such cessation of work resorted to by the workmen. In that case, the learned Judge observed as follows:— “If cessation of work is the result of strike, it is not possible to lend the support of this Court to stultify the result of such cessation of work resorted to by the workmen. The very effect of the strike resorted to by the workmen will be watered down if the managements, either by themselves or through their customers, are permitted to remove the goods, either manufactured by the managements or coming into the custody of the management in the course of their trade. If the customers of the managements are to be permitted to remove the goods, by themselves, without the aid of the labour, that would tantamount to rendering the strike inefficacious, and to achieve that purpose, this Court should not lend its hands.” —P. 289. That was a case where the plaintiff management of an industrial concern filed applications for injunction pending the suit against the defendants, who are employees Unions restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner peacefully or otherwise with the removal of finished or semi-finished goods, or preventing in any manner the conveyance of goods, supplies, orders and raw materials, into the plaintiffs factory. They have also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner, directly or indirectly, peacefully or otherwise, preventing the management, staff and other officers and any person or persons desirous of entering or leaving the plaintiffs factory from doing so. The latter part of the relief set out above was granted by the learned Judge, though the relief against interference with the removal of goods was denied. The learned Judge considered, having regard to the facts of that case, that the injunction prayed for should not be granted in respect of the removal of goods. 3. In the other decision reported in G.R.S.M.(W) Co., Ltd. v. District Collector, Allepey 1, a learned Judge of the Kerala High Court held:— “Though under the Constitution of India, the right to strikers not a fundamental fright as such, it is open to a citizen to go on strike or withhold his labour. Every strike is not illegal and the workers in any democratic State have the right to resort to strike whenever they are so pleased in order to express their grievances or to make certain demands. Every strike is not illegal and the workers in any democratic State have the right to resort to strike whenever they are so pleased in order to express their grievances or to make certain demands. A strike in the circumstances, is a necessary safety valve in industrial relations when properly resorted. It is a legitimate weapon in the matter of industrial relations—P. 359” The learned Judge further held: “If the executive arm of the State decides that in a dispute between Labour and Capital, the State should as far as possible not step in with its police power to tilt the balance in favour of the capital the court shall not act as a spoke in the wheel to interfere with such policy— Page 361”. 4. The above decisions cannot be taken as laying down any abstract proposition of law without any relation to the facts that in every case of strike, the workers are entitled to prevent the removal of the goods, or ingress or egress of raw materials or other products, or that the workers are entitled to gherao and prevent people from entering or earning out of the factory or the industrial premises. The ratio of the judgments, in our opinion, is that if the preventing of removal of the goods would involve only the monetary Interest of the management and no public interest is involved, the court may consider not helping the management and not interfering in the dispute by way of any injunction orders. However, if the facts and circumstances are such as that it is just and necessary to permit the goods to be removed in order to prevent any waste or loss of goods, or that the acts in relation to which injunction is prayed for will have no effect on public interest, then, injunction against interference with the removal of goods shall not be granted. If not granting an injunction will tantamount to affecting public interest, the court is duty bound to give such protection as is needed, Therefore, each case will have to depend on facts. 5. There is no disputes that the first respondent in this case is a bus operator and is plying its buses between Tiruppur and Satyamangalam and between Tiruppur Bus stand and Cheyur in Tiruppur towns service. 5. There is no disputes that the first respondent in this case is a bus operator and is plying its buses between Tiruppur and Satyamangalam and between Tiruppur Bus stand and Cheyur in Tiruppur towns service. Having regard to the fact that in this case not only the interest of the non-striking workmen but also the interest of the public are involved, and if the route buses are not permitted to ply on the routes, the public will be inconvenienced no injunction against taking buses shall be granted. We are satisfied that the public interest outweighs in this matter. Not permitting the buses from being taken out from the garage and put on the roads would certainly inconvenience the public. The alternative suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant that if there is such a great inconvenience and prejudice caused to the public, the Government may step in and take appropriate action in our opinion, is not an answer and cannot be a a justifiable ground for preventing the buses from being taken out of the garage and put on the road. We are satisfied that in the present case, the order of the learned Judge permitting police protection is just and reasonable. In fact, it is the same learned Judge who decided the case reported in Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd. v. Simpson and Group Companies Union 2, that has decided this case also. The learned Judge himself felt that his earlier judgment cannot be applied without reference to the facts and circumstances of each case, especially when public interest is involved. We are satisfied that the order of the learned Judge, permitting police protection, in the circumstances, is just and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. The writ appeal accordingly fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.