Judgment :- 1. This is an application for police protection. Protection is sought on the ground of totally unjustified intervention on the part of the trade unions. The Unions, the fifth and sixth respondents, have appeared through counsel and have filed a counter-affidavit. 2. Ordinarily in relation to cases where bonafide labour disputes exist, or even when strikes are going on, this Court will be very cautious in granting police protection in such a way as to stifle legitimate trade Union activities. Extraordinary situations would, however, call for extraordinary solutions; even in the matter of prayer for police protection. 3. The stand taken by the 5th and 6th respondent Unions and the document Ext. R6 (a) produced by them, pose a serious matter for consideration by this Court and by the law and order agencies in the State. Ext. R6. (a) evidences a transfer by two workmen of their rights of employment in favour of two other workers. The person in whose favour transfer is executed is the Secretary of the Trade Union. In essence, it would appear that the Secretary of a Trade Union is a dealer in workmen and that he can transfer the property in the workmen concerned. This arrangement is fundamentally opposed to a proper employer-employee relationship. As is well known, unlike in slavery, an employee under an employer has got the liberty to leave his employment. That indeed is the hall mark of the relationship of master and servant as distinguished from the slave and the slave owner. The relationship is one between the employer and the employee. Security of employment is secured by diverse pieces of legislation in the social, commercial and industrial field. Subject to such safeguards in favour of the employer, it is the employer who has got the right to decide as to how the establishment should he run; it is he to decide as to who should be employed. He cannot be ordinarily compelled by the employee or the trade union to employ a person chosen by the Trade Union. In the present case, as noted earlier, what is attempted is to arrogate to the Trade Union Secretary, the entire power of appointment, transferor termination of the workers. That is not permissible under our system of law. No provision had been brought to my notice which would justify the execution of an agreement of the nature of Ext. R6 (a). In the present case, as noted earlier, what is attempted is to arrogate to the Trade Union Secretary, the entire power of appointment, transferor termination of the workers. That is not permissible under our system of law. No provision had been brought to my notice which would justify the execution of an agreement of the nature of Ext. R6 (a). The Secretary of a trade union is dealing in workers, like chattels as was the practice in days of old. The agreement puts the Union movement itself in a very bad light. In the closing ears of 20th century, such a practice cannot be tolerated by a court of law. 4. Inasmuch as the intervention is integrally connected with the employment of persons at the request of the 5th and 6th respondents, I feel that necessary safeguards have to be made for the proper functioning of the petitioner's establishment. If, on the basis of an agreement, Ext. R6 (a), attempts are being made to bring the working of the establishment to a standstill, what is brought to a crying halt is not merely the functioning of the establishment but also the Rule of Law. Such a situation cannot be permitted to arise. 5. Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submitted that if the request of the petitioner is acceded to, similar request will be made from similarly situate parties all over the State. If similar situation exists and if there be circumstances justifying the grant of similar reliefs this Court will not hesitate to grant necessary reliefs and mete out justice to those who deserve the same. 6. There will, therefore, be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate and sufficient police protection in the running of the establishment of the petitioner, and to checkmate any possible interference by the 5th and 6th respondent Unions or the workers on whose behalf those Unions put forward Ext. R6 (a) agreement. It needs no emphasis that such police protection will be given for the running of the establishment and for the transporting of the goods and for the loading and unloading operations at both ends. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will not be denying work to any of the persons mentioned in Ext. P1. That submission is recorded. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.