Judgment :- 1. When C.M.P. No. 24255 of 1986 came up for hearing, the learned counsel of the petitioner and respondents 3, 4 and 5 and the Government Pleader submitted that the Original Petition itself can be disposed of. 2. The short question that has to be decided in this case is whether I should give a direction to the police to give protection to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent and another person by name Madhava Panicker who belonged to the third respondent-Union are causing violent unlawful obstruction to the petitioner even to enter into his property. He is not allowed to live peacefully in a building in the properly in question. The petitioner's further case is that he is unlawfully prevented from doing the lawful agricultural operations in his property and also from taking the yield from the property. 3. The counsel for respondents 3 to S submitted that the property in question is a rubber plantation and that the fifth respondent and Madhava Panicker were the permanent tapper and watcher respectively of the petitioner and that the petitioner has illegally denied work to the above two persons. This has created a tense situation and a serious labour problem. The said two persons along with their supporters are offering a peaceful satyagraha. They have no intention to cause any obstruction or disturbance to the petitioner. They are using only passive resistance. 4. The Government Pleader who appears before me for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the satyagraha offered at the instance of respondents 3 to 5 is not violent and it is generally peaceful; but on some occasions when there were unlawful obstructions, the police has taken appropriate actions. They have registered cases and arrested the persons involved in the crimes. 5. The counsel for the petitioner tells me that the rights of the 5th respondent and Madhava Panicker to be employed as workers of the petitioner are the serious controversies now before the District Labour Officer, Trivandrum for consideration and that matter will be decided by the District Labour Officer. Petitioner says that pending the decision of the District Labour Officer, he must be given police assistance at least to enter into his property and do agricultural operations and to take the usufructs of the trees and the yield of the property. Petitioner says that pending the decision of the District Labour Officer, he must be given police assistance at least to enter into his property and do agricultural operations and to take the usufructs of the trees and the yield of the property. The definite case of the petitioner is that the 5ih respondent was employed as a tapper only in a separate property measuring 1 acre and possibly he cannot have any claim in regard to other properties. Of course, this is disputed by the 5th-respondent. 6. Every person has in law the remedy of self-help to remove unlawful and illegal obstruction to bis lawful activities and the police shall have power and obligation when required to assist him in removing the obstruction and stopping the unlawful acts of the obstructors either in order to prevent actual or apprehended breaches of peace occurring when the removal or stopping takes place or because the conduct of the obstructors in unlawfully obstructing the lawful activities of the person is itself a breach of the peace. However, since it is for the police at the site and not the court to decide when and how to exercise that power, normally, mandamus would not be issued directing the police to act in a particular manner. The court cannot judge the explosiveness of the situation or deal with individual and singular problems which may spring up as a result of the activities of the obstructors, 7. True, respondents 3 to 5 submit that they are offering only peaceful satyagraha and no intervention of the police is called for in the present situation. It is said by great men that in the conduct of ordinary mortals passive resistance only remains passive so long as the resistance is successful. So certainly the police on the spot must decide when to intervene. But, in certain circumstances, court can and shall indicate on a valuation of the facts placed before it, that the time has come for the police to exercise their powers; but not the mode and manner of its exercise. 8. There can be no serious controversy on the point that even if there is a labour dispute the striking workers have no right to cause any unlawful obstruction. If they do it, it will still be a crime. The police has to prevent it. It is their prime obligation. 8. There can be no serious controversy on the point that even if there is a labour dispute the striking workers have no right to cause any unlawful obstruction. If they do it, it will still be a crime. The police has to prevent it. It is their prime obligation. The complaint of the petitioner is that the police is failing in discharging this important obligation, in law. I should hasten to say that respondents 1 to 3, through their counsel, stoutly denied it. 9. In these circumstances, I think the police should give assistance to the petitioner for free ingress and egress to his property without any obstruction by any person whatsoever. Further, the petitioner should be given assistance to employ bis own willing workers - not strangers who were not in his service. I would make it clear that the petitioner can employ only his two permanent tapping workers for the tapping work. Respondents 3 to 5 agree that the petitioner's two permanent workers are P. Nelson and Majeed. The petitioner should be given adequate protection for his peaceful residence in his building and for taking the yield and the usufructs from the property. Since there is a serious labour dispute, particularly in regard to the 1 acre, I hold that till the labour dispute is settled, the petitioner should not employ any person for tapping the trees in that separate plot of 1 acre. With these observations, the O.P. is disposed of. Issue carbon copies of the judgment to all the parties on usual terms.