JUDGMENT V.S. Malimath, C.J. 1. This appeal is by the management challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge in O. P. No. 8404 of 1987. Mr. Appachan Varghese, Secretary, Malankara Estate Unit of the Estates Staffs and Employees' Union of South India came to this Court with a prayer for the issue of a direction to the Labour Commissioner to conciliate and settle the dispute between the management and the striking employees of the Estate and for a further direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the State Government to forbear from giving police protection to the management to engage any other person in place of striking employees and further to direct them not to interfere in the labour disputes and to terminate the harassment and atrocities by the police on the striking employees. The striking workmen whose cause is being championed by the Union claimed that they should be given production incentive in respect of supervisors and drivers in the same manner as incentive is given to the rubber tappers in the estate on the ground that they are persons who are involved in production. As the demand was not conceded they have gone on strike. At the relevant point of time the matter was seized by the Commissioner who was making attempts to conciliate. It is at that stage it is alleged that the Management brought outside persons to work in the place of striking workmen and the management is doing this with the aid of police protection. It is therefore the apprehension of the Union that the Management is resorting to unfair labour practice and the police authorities are giving their protection to the management and helping them to perpetrate such unfair labour practice. The learned single Judge obviously felt that it is not possible to pronounce on the dispute between the parties in regard to unfair labour practice which has been asserted by the Union and controverted by the Management. The learned single Judge felt that there is no need for the issue of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to settle the dispute as prayed for. It is obvious that such a command cannot be given. The authority can only make an attempt to settle and cannot guarantee settlement as that requires the agreement of the parties and not unilateral volition of the authorities who undertake responsibility of conciliation. It is obvious that such a command cannot be given. The authority can only make an attempt to settle and cannot guarantee settlement as that requires the agreement of the parties and not unilateral volition of the authorities who undertake responsibility of conciliation. It is in this background that the learned single Judge observed that it is the duty of the District Superintendent of Police to see that there is no violation of law and order. The principal grievance of the Management is in regard to what has been stated thereafter, which reads: "He will however see that no assistance will be rendered by the police force to promote any unfair labour practice by the 1st respondent, (Management). If there is any dispute as to whether there is an unfair labour practice, the 2nd respondent Labour Commissioner or the District Labour Officer, as the case may be, may give appropriate directions in that behalf." 2. In this appeal, the principal contention of the appellant's counsel is that neither the Labour Commissioner nor the District Labour Officer can decide the dispute whether there is unfair labour practice as asserted by the Union. It is obvious the that Labour Commissioner or the other authorities who are clothed with the power of conciliation are only required to take all possible steps to persuade both the parties to arrive at a settlement. They have no right to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. Their rights and responsibilities are only to promote settlement. If a settlement is not possible they cannot pronounce their verdict on the question as to who is right and who is wrong, as that matter can be decided with the four corners of the Industrial Disputes Act on an appropriate reference made to the Tribunal or Court under S.10 Hence we agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge could not have issued a direction to the Labour Commissioner or the District Labour Officer to decide the question of unfair labour practice and to give consequential directions in that behalf. The only thing that one should expect from the authority which is charged with the responsibility of conciliation is to make best efforts to settle the matter in an amicable way. The only thing that one should expect from the authority which is charged with the responsibility of conciliation is to make best efforts to settle the matter in an amicable way. If that fails the only other alternative is to place the parties before the adjudicatory forum where the rights of the parties can be adjudicated upon resulting in an appropriate award being made. 3. So far as the question of directing police protection being given is concerned it is enough to clarify the correct legal position. He must bear in mind that this is a case in which the Management asserts that there is a settlement which covers the dispute, the Union asserts that there is no such settlement. There is no award pronounced by the Labour Court or by the Industrial Tribunal giving its verdict in this behalf. That being the position it is obvious that the role of the police is essentially to maintain law and order and to prevent commission of offences. The police can therefore go to the scene to prevent breach of law and order or prevention of commission of offence whether or not they are invited to do so by one or the other party, as it is the primary responsibility of the police to prevent commission of offence and to prevent breach of law and order. Therefore the question of going into and examining as to who has committed unfair labour practice and as to whether the police should help one or the other party either to help commission of unfair labour practice or to prevent commission of unfair labour practice are all matters which are not germane at all so far as the role of police is concerned. Their role comes into play only when there is a problem of law and order or a problem of breach of peace or problem of commission of offences. They are not concerned with the assertion or denial of the rights of the workmen or the Management. There is a regular procedure prescribed, a regular forum to adjudicate upon those rights or can be made the subject matter of conciliation settlement. The police cannot be made the arbiter of the rights of citizens. They are not concerned with the assertion or denial of the rights of the workmen or the Management. There is a regular procedure prescribed, a regular forum to adjudicate upon those rights or can be made the subject matter of conciliation settlement. The police cannot be made the arbiter of the rights of citizens. We have rule of law prevailing in our country and not the rule by police and we cannot abdicate the judicial functions which have to be performed by Courts or quasi judicial tribunals. The question as to whether there is an unfair labour practice or whether there is an industrial dispute which favours one or the other parties have to be adjudicated by appropriate forum. We should not call upon the police authorities directly or indirectly to clutch jurisdiction in this arena which essentially is one reserved for judicial or quasi judicial authorities. The only limited scope available for the police is for maintenance of law and order, to prevent breach of peace and to prevent commission of offences and if offence is committed to take further action in accordance with law. They can exercise this power in this behalf irrespective of the question as to who is right or who is wrong so far as the basic civil rights are concerned. That being the, position the only observation we should make in a case like this, not either in favour of the Union or in favour of the Management, is to say that it becomes the plain duty of the police to step in if there is a problem of law and order or problem of peace or problem of commission of offence. That being the position the observations made by the learned single Judge which we have extracted above cannot be sustained. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed, the O. P. is disposed of with the observation that the police authorities can step in only if there is a problem of law and order or breach of peace or commission of offence. No costs.