Balakrishna Transport v. Supdt. of Police — 1990 DIGILAW 61 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. The issues raised in these Original Petitions are interconnected. So, I consider it advantageous to dispose of the same by a common judgment. I am referring to the parties and exhibits as they are arrayed and marked in O.P. No.6320/1989. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these cases are as follows: Petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He owns a fleet of stage carriages. They ply on inter district routes. Headquarters is in Trichur District. Petitioner has in his employment nearly 130 workers. Majority of the, employees are members of 7th respondent trade union. 8th respondent commands second position in terms of numerical strength of members. 9th respondent union was established recently. They have put forward a charter of demands evidenced by Ext.P4. Petitioner moved 6th respondent, the District Labour Officer, Trichur, to take up the demand and to conciliate the matter. While conciliation proceedings were in progress 9th respondent issued Ext.P7 ultimatum to the petitioner demanding that the charter of demands submitted by them should be accepted into on or before 22-6-1989 and on failure they will resort to direct action from 23-6-1989 onwards. Petitioner could not comply with the ultimatum given by 9th respondent. Consequently 9th respondent and its followers resorted to use of force against the petitioner and vehicles owned by him. Petitioner approached the police officials for getting protection from the illegal activities of 9th respondent and its followers. Since effective protection was not afforded by the police, petitioner has approached this court by moving O.P.No.6320/1989. 3. 9th respondent has moved O.P. 6345/1989 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondents 1 and 2, police officers, Trichur, to prevent them from giving any police help or assistance to the petitioner in O.P.6320/1989. 4. Along with O.P.6345/89 the petitioner moved C.M.P.No.19194/89 praying for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to forbear from giving any police help or assistance to the management for conducting the stage carriage services with newly recruited labourers either directly or through the local police. This court on 7-9-1989 issued the following order: "4th respondent (petitioner in O.P. 6320/89) shall not operate stage carriage services by availing of services of any person appointed to his service after 23-6-89". 5. Along with O.P.6320 of 1989 petitioner moved C.M.P.19143/1989. This court on 7-9-1989 issued the following order: "4th respondent (petitioner in O.P. 6320/89) shall not operate stage carriage services by availing of services of any person appointed to his service after 23-6-89". 5. Along with O.P.6320 of 1989 petitioner moved C.M.P.19143/1989. In that, petitioner prayed for an interim direction to the police officers to afford adequate protection to him and members of his family and employees in the establishment. On 7-8-1989 the Superintendent of Police, Trichur, and Circle Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor were directed to ensure that respondents 7 to 9 or those acting under them shall not interfere with the operation of stage carriage services operated by petitioner. In pursuance to that direction petitioner could ply his vehicles within the Trichur District without any obstruction from 9th respondent and its followers. But when the vehicles entered the surrounding districts they were obstructed and damaged by the followers of 9th respondent They resorted to violence under the cover of the order obtained by them in C.M.P. No. 19194/89 as well. Consequently, petitioner moved this court by filing C.M.P. No.23735/1989. This court by order dated 15-9-1989 made it clear that the District Superintendents of Police, Malappuram, Calicut and Palghat are equally bound by the order passed by this court in C.M.P. No. 19143A989 and that they should give adequate protection to the petitioner so as to enable him to ply the vehicles in the normal manner. There upon the petitioner could ply his vehicles on the routes covered by the permits without any obstruction from 9th respondent and its followers. 6. As per the order in C.M.P. 23733/1989 a Commissioner was deputed from this court to inspect the damaged buses and to file a report regarding the same. The Commissioner after inspecting the buses, filed his report before Court on 3-10-1989. From the report it is seen that 27 buses were lying in the garage and that they have been extensively damaged. The front glasses, head-light assemblies, rear glasses, park-lights, back-side glasses etc. of those buses are reported to have been smashed. The Commissioner also reported that the tyres have been torn and that the electrical fittings and brake-connections were cut off. Petitioner also got another commission issued as per order in C.M.P.No.20337/1989 to inspect and report regarding the location of a shed erected by 9th respondent and its members in front of the petitioner's garage and office. The Commissioner also reported that the tyres have been torn and that the electrical fittings and brake-connections were cut off. Petitioner also got another commission issued as per order in C.M.P.No.20337/1989 to inspect and report regarding the location of a shed erected by 9th respondent and its members in front of the petitioner's garage and office. The Commissioner after visiting the place filed a report on 12-8-1989. He has reported that the location of the thatched shed is such that it causes obstruction for the ingress into and egress from the petitioner's garage when the bus comes from the southern side of the road. 7. Even-after the above orders were issued, the high-handed activities of 9th respondent and its followers continued unabated. Their attempt was to cause physical harm to the petitioner and members of his family. Therefore, petitioner moved C.M.P.No.468/1990. After hearing learned counsel appearing on either side, this court directed the Superintendent of Police, Trichur, to afford effective and adequate police protection to the person and property of the petitioner. Police officers were also directed to afford protection to the members of the petitioner's family from any threat or intimidation by the members of the three unions, respondents 7 to 9 and their followers and supporters. 8. Shri. K. R. Kurup, learned counsel representing 9th respondent submits that his client and its followers are not having any intention to cause any obstruction or damage to the petitioner's vehicles. His complaint is that under the cover of the orders passed by this court in various C.M.Ps., in O.P.No.6320/1989 police are giving undue protection to the petitioner to enable him to resort to unfair labour practice. It is his case that the petitioner is recruiting new labourers for plying his vehicles and that the labourers who are members of 9th respondent union are denied employment. 9. 9th respondent union submitted Ext.P4 charter of demands. 6th respondent, the District Labour Officer, Trichur, is seized of the matter. As conciliation officer he has initiated proceedings for settling the dispute. Even, 9th respondent has no case that petitioner is not taking part in the conciliation proceedings. If the petitioner is resorting to unfair labour practice, 6th respondent is duty bound to take appropriate action under the Industrial Disputes Act. I do not find any ground to doubt the efficiency of 6th respondent in this aspect of the matter. 10. Even, 9th respondent has no case that petitioner is not taking part in the conciliation proceedings. If the petitioner is resorting to unfair labour practice, 6th respondent is duty bound to take appropriate action under the Industrial Disputes Act. I do not find any ground to doubt the efficiency of 6th respondent in this aspect of the matter. 10. To get the demands made under Ext.P4 conceded by the petitioner, 9th respondent issued an ultimatum evidenced by Ext. P7. As per that ultimatum, petitioner should have conceded the demands on or before 22-6-1989. When it was not so conceded, 9th respondent declared that they will resort to direct action. In compliance with the ultimatum, it is evident that 9th respondent resorted to direct action of a violent nature. 9th respondent union is representing the employees engaged in the running of stage carriages belonging to the petitioner. Under the cover of direct action to get their demands conceded by the employer, are these employees en titled to destroy the vehicles? If the vehicles cease to exist, how will they work? According to me, it must be the concern of the employees to preserve the vehicles so that they can have their employment continued. If an artisan destroys his tools in the purported exercise of strike to get the demands conceded, I am sure he will render himself jobless. This type of self destruction should not be resorted to by the labour for getting their rights established. 11. The 9th respondent union was formed very recently. According to the petitioner only nine, out of hundred and thirty employees have joined that union. It has put forward Ext.P4 charter of demands which is being dealt with by 6th respondent. While so an ultimatum was given to concede the demands on or before 22-6-1989 failing which they threatened direct action. The necessity to form unions is obviously for voicing the demands and grievances of labourers. Strength of a trade union depends on its membership. Trade unions with sufficient membership are able to bargain more effectively with management. Strike in a given situation is only a form of demonstration. The right to demonstrate and the right to strike are important weapons in the armoury of the workers. This is recognised as a mode of redress for solving the grievances of the workers. Even the right to strike is not absolute. Strike in a given situation is only a form of demonstration. The right to demonstrate and the right to strike are important weapons in the armoury of the workers. This is recognised as a mode of redress for solving the grievances of the workers. Even the right to strike is not absolute. Certain restrictions are provided in the Industrial Disputes Act itself vide S.10(3), 10A(4A), 22 and 23. In the instant case 6th respondent had convened joint conferences and he was attempting to bring out a conciliation settlement It was at this juncture, the 9th respondent resorted to violence for settling the dispute, presumably by forcing the petitioner to agree to the charter of demands. Unfortunately they resorted to destructive activities by damaging the vehicles. They had no concern for the vehicles in which the workers were engaged. According to me, the interest of the establishment and the institution must be paramount to all concerned, especially to the workmen engaged therein. 12. The police did not take effective steps to protect the vehicles from the high handed destructive activities of the 9th respondent and its followers. They were keeping away on the ground that police are not to interfere in labour disputes. This attitude of police cannot be accepted in toto. If the workmen resort to force and their actions amount to commission of offences under the ordinary law of the land, police will have to take effective steps to prevent the same and to bring the offenders to due process of law. Under the guise of labour agitation no one can be permitted to take law into his own hands. Any laches on the part of the police in this direction will affect the industrial peace in the State. 13. The right of collective bargain will not and cannot extent to destruction of the establishment. 9th respondent has resorted to such destructive activities in this case. It is to be noted with pain that the leaders have not realised the folly they are committing. I hope wisdom will dawn on them and they will direct their followers in the proper line. I have no doubt in my mind that under the guise of labour agitation the labour is not entitled to destroy the factory and the appliances. When they resort to such activities the police will have to intervene and maintain law and order. I hope wisdom will dawn on them and they will direct their followers in the proper line. I have no doubt in my mind that under the guise of labour agitation the labour is not entitled to destroy the factory and the appliances. When they resort to such activities the police will have to intervene and maintain law and order. They have to protect the person and property of the employer as well, for they are also citizens of this country. 14. The report filed by the Commissioner dated 3-10-1989 shows that 27 buses belonging to the petitioner have been damaged. According to the petitioner damages come to a few lakhs of rupees. This damage has been caused by 9th respondent, its followers and sympathisers in the purported exercise of labour demonstration. This cannot be supported. Respondents 1 to 5 are to give effective and adequate protection to the petitioner in plying his vehicles on the routes covered by the permits. If the vehicles are taken off the routes, it will cause untold miseries to the common man, the travelling public. Police have to give protection to maintain the transport service. Petitioner has not engaged any new workman. He is plying the vehicles with his regular employees. Thus, it is seen that he has not resorted to any unfair labour practice. 15. The dispute that exists between the petitioner and labour unions will have to be settled by 6th respondent in accordance with the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. 6th respondent is directed to take effective steps to get that dispute settled as expeditiously as possible. 16. Commissioner's report dated 12-8-1989 shows that 9th respondent has put up a shed in front of the gate of the petitioner's garage and office to continue its dharna or strike. That shed is one interfering with the free ingress into and egress out of the garage. Petitioner's vehicles cannot be taken in, because of the obstruction caused by the shed. 9th respondent has no right to have such a construction in front of the garage belonging to the petitioner. Nor has the union got aright to put up a shed in between the compound wall and the public road so as to interfere with the passage to the garage. 9th respondent has no right to have such a construction in front of the garage belonging to the petitioner. Nor has the union got aright to put up a shed in between the compound wall and the public road so as to interfere with the passage to the garage. So, I direct the second respondent to take effective steps to remove that part of the shed which interferes with the free ingress into and egress from the garage of stage carriages belonging to the petitioner. This must be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 17. O.P.6320/1989 is allowed in the above terms. O.P.6345/89 is dismissed with the observation that the District Labour Officer, Trichur, will take effective steps to prevent the petitioner from resorting to unfair labour practice, if he resorts to any. Issue photo copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms. Allowed.