Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner is a Public Ltd. Company having one among its manufacturing units at Kalamassery. The company is manufacturing chemicals including that which is highly explosive. There was an industrial dispute pending adjudication between the management of the petitioner and the workmen represented by the trade unions. As per the judgment of this Court in W. A. 1016/96, the adjudication of the said dispute had been expedited. The Industrial Tribunal with whom the proceedings for adjudication was pending also persuaded the parties to settle the dispute. Accordingly, a memorandum of settlement was drawn up between the parties on 15.11.1996. But three of the pending issues were left open for further discussion and the matter is now pending conciliation before the Deputy Labour Commissioner (I.R.)Ernakulam. 2. There are five unions, namely, respondents 5 to 9 representing workmen under the petitioner. Out of them respondents 8 and 9 are the unions of the contract workers and the respondents No. 5 to 7 are the unions of regular workers of the petitioner. While so, the 6th and 7th respondents issued a strike notice on 14.1.97 to pursue the issues which remained unsettled and raising further disputes, according to the petitioner. As per the strike notice, the strike was to commence on 28.1.1997 but that was postponed and the strike commenced on 3.2.97. It is submitted by the petitioner that "respondent 5 which i s a majority Union did not cause to issue a strike notice as is done by respondents 6 and 7". In the meantime, the contract workers unionized under respondent No. 8 also joined that agitation. Their agitation, according to the petitioner turned to be violent and their agitation has disrupted the loading and unloading work in the factory. It is further alleged that "the agitation of the contract workers became violent and the factory work had to be stopped in view of the obstruction caused by them for the removal of the goods etc.". The petitioner approached the Police and the obstruction caused by the contract workers was removed by the 4th respondent. Thus again when there was loading operations, the contract workers caused obstruction and they threatened the lorry drivers with dire consequences. The petitioner approached the Police and the obstruction caused by the contract workers was removed by the 4th respondent. Thus again when there was loading operations, the contract workers caused obstruction and they threatened the lorry drivers with dire consequences. It is also alleged that the strike of the workers represented by respondents No. 6 and 7 "also was not at all peaceful" and thus the strike called by respondents 6 to 7 "created a situation by which it became impossible to run the factory The situation became worse on 5.2.97 and a tense situation prevailed giving rise to a law and order situation on 5th when the managerial staff were prevented from going outside the factory till late in the night". It is stated that they were rescued by the police. The petitioner alleged that all these are created by handful of workmen represented by respondents 6,7 & 8 when the majority of the workmen represented by respondent 5 and respondent 9 and the staff and non unionized personnel are working and are prepared to work." The willing workers are being threatened by them. It is alleged that though at the first instance the police have intervened and removed the obstruction, "they plead helplessness if the situation continues further." They are also causing obstruction to the canteen supply to deprive the willing workmen of the canteen facilities and thereby to persuade them not to work. It is in the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection for free ingress and egress of their willing workers, staff and managerial personnel and also to remove obstruction to the removal of finished, semi-finished goods and raw materials from the godown inside the factory premises to outside and for free movement of vehicles inside and outside the factory premises. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7. It is submitted that "the strike is on seven issues, two of which are for the implementation of the clauses in the settlement signed on 15.11.1996 and has been resorted to after giving due notice to the petitioner management". 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7. It is submitted that "the strike is on seven issues, two of which are for the implementation of the clauses in the settlement signed on 15.11.1996 and has been resorted to after giving due notice to the petitioner management". It is stated that inspite of the co-operation by the unions to the petitioner management for a peaceful settlement of the pending issues "the petitioner had adopted an attitude of hostility towards the unions representing the majority of the workmen." It is stated that the 5th and 9th respondent do not have the majority of membership of the workers. It is admitted that they have not joined the strike and their members are working in the factory. They further submit that no obstruction is caused to such workers though they are minority. It is also submitted that the management was forced to arrive at a settlement on 15.11.1996 in along pending dispute arisen on 15.4.1995 because of the intervention of this Court and the Industrial Tribunal. They submit that "the strike is peaceful and except for the peaceful Satyagraha, no violence has been caused to anybody". They are only "requesting the officers not to enter the factory and no force is used against them and the officers are not entering the factory because of any avert action by the workers. Possibly, the officers have also sympathy for the workers' cause." It is further submitted that in a dispute between the labour and the management the State should take neutral attitude and shall interfere only when there is violence. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for police intervention and police protection shall not be rendered by an order of this Court. 4. Thus, the facts disclosed by the pleadings of the respective parties are that there was a settlement between the management on the one side and the unions on the other side on 15.11.1996. Few among the issues which were left open, are pending conciliation. It is centered around those issues that the strike has been launched by respondents 6 to 8 unions. Admittedly two unions namely, respondents 5 and 9 are not on strike. Itis also admitted that there are willing workers who have not joined the strike. Few among the issues which were left open, are pending conciliation. It is centered around those issues that the strike has been launched by respondents 6 to 8 unions. Admittedly two unions namely, respondents 5 and 9 are not on strike. Itis also admitted that there are willing workers who have not joined the strike. It is submitted on behalf of the striking unions that the management shall not be allowed to take away the finished and semi-finished goods or the raw-materials available in the factory and that will defeat the interest of striking workers. It is submitted by the management that subsequent to the filing of the Original Petition there was threat from the striking workers towards the management staff who are residing in the quarters. 4A. A similar issue came up for consideration of this Court in KeralaSpinningMill Workers Union v. Kerala Spinners Ltd., (1994 (1) KLT417). In that case there were strike and stoppage of machineries and deliberate absenteeism by all the workmen of the industry. The unions were not willing to accept the offer of the management. No settlement could be brought out even after the conciliation. Finally the management decided to lock out the factory and the management approached the Court seeking police protection to avert "obstruction to the ingress and egress not only to the officers but also in respect of the finished and semi-finished products and raw-materials", as the company was not able to discharge its contractual obligation. A learned single judge granted police protection. One among the unions took up the matter in appeal. It was contended on behalf of the appellant union in that case that: "Even if violence is to be prevented, the management should not be allowed to remove the finished, semi-finished products or the raw material, from out of the premises, for that would adversely affect the financial claims regarding wages etc., which the workmen have against a Company which has been under lock out from 24.9.1993." It was also contended that police protection order cannot be granted under Art.226 to the management merely for the asking of it and such orders of police protection were likely to tilt the balance of bargaining power in favour of the management. This Court then found that: "When there have been acts of violence by workmen against the person and property of the employer, if the police to whom the employer has resorted to, do not give adequate and timely protection, the employer must have a legal remedy to enforce his right to protection of his person and property. We are governed by the rule of law and the State has a solemn duty towards its citizens for protection of their person and property. Whether any particular situation deserve grant of police protection from the Court, it is for the Court to decide, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the past conduct of the workmen and the reasonableness of the apprehension of the employer in regard to the likelihood of the recurrence of such conduct on the part of the workmen. It cannot be said that, even in cases of proof of past violent conduct of the workmen, police protection to the employer if granted by Court, would tilt the balance of bargaining power in favour of the management." The ruling cited in that decision including that in Gwalior Rayon's Silk Mfg. (Weaving) Co. Ltd. Calicut and Am. v. District Collector Alleppey (1982 Labour & Industrial Cases 367) if laid down any such broad proposition as contended by the appellant in that case was dissented from the same. Regarding the removal of finished goods etc., in that decision, the Division Bench held that: "It must he noted that here, the company had already incurred various obligations under pending contracts to Indian and foreign buyers, in respect of the finished products manufactured. So far as semi - finished products and raw material are concerned, they would get spoiled if they are allowed to rot. As pointed out by the learned single judge, the Management may become liable for damages and may lose future purchase orders or export orders as the case maybe. Hence, the court cannot, while granting police protection as stated above impose restrictions that the company should not be allowed to perform its contractual obligations referred to above." On the basis of this decision 1 cannot but allow this Original Petition. But it is contended on behalf of respondents 6 and 7 that this decision requires reconsideration. Hence, the court cannot, while granting police protection as stated above impose restrictions that the company should not be allowed to perform its contractual obligations referred to above." On the basis of this decision 1 cannot but allow this Original Petition. But it is contended on behalf of respondents 6 and 7 that this decision requires reconsideration. It is further submitted that the decision in Gwalior Rayons case (1982 Labour and Industrial Case 367) is the correct law and that has not been properly considered by the Division Bench and therefore, the decision in K.S.M. W. Union v. Kerala Spinners Ltd. (1994 (1) KLT 417) requires reconsideration. 5. I do not think that, that decision requires reconsideration. The facts in that case reveal that the entire workmen were on strike and in consequence of that strike there was a lock-out. On the other hand, in the case on hand out of the 5 unions only three are on strike. Even if the remaining two unions represent the minority as alleged by the respondents 6 and 7 and which is disputed by the petitioner, their members are not on strike. Admittedly by the respondents 6 to 8, members of the other unions are willing to work. If in case of total strike, the police protection can be granted as held by this Court in K.S.M. W. Unions case (1994(1) KLT 417), necessarily, when there is only a partial strike, police protection has to be granted and on that reason, the decision does not call for any reconsideration, at least with reference to this case. 6. On another reason also, there is no merit in the contention that the said decision requires reconsideration. It is contended that the law laid down by this Court in Gwalior Rayons case (1982 Lab. I.C. 367) is the correct law. It is held in that case that: 'Though under the Constitution of India, the right to strike is not a fundamental right 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. A strike in the circumstances is a necessary safety valve in the industrial relations when properly resorted to. 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 the industrial relations when properly resorted to. It is a legitimate weapon in the matter of industrial relation." I respectfully agree with this proposition. Strike is a powerful weapon in the hands of workmen to pursue their demands and to bring the management to an amicable settlement to the dispute raised by the workers. When we accept that the workers have got a right to strike it has also equally to be accepted that the workers shall have the right not to strike. Trade unions are expected to function in a democratic manner. When the are several unions, each of them will take its own decisions. In this case, there are 5 unions out of which 3 alone decided to strike and 2 did not decide to strike. The right to respondents 5 and 8 not to resort to strike shall equally be honoured along with the right of respondents 6 to 8 to resort to strike. So even going by the decision in Gwalior Rayons case, which is contended to be the correct law by the counsel for the respondents 6 and 7, that decision upheld the right of the union to strike as well as not to strike. When there are several unions and few of them do not strike, going by that decision, the right of those striking workers as well as the right of those non striking workers have to be honoured. In other words when democratic decisions are taken by different registered trade unions to strike and not to strike, the respective members have to honour those decisions. The striking workers therefore, cannot have aright to obstruct the nonstriking workers because the striking workers and non-striking workers have their own right to strike and not to strike. So, the right to strike available to the workers will not extend to the right to obstruct those workers who exercised the right not to strike. Therefore, when there is striking workers and willing workers, necessarily there will be law and order situation and the police shall render necessary protection to the willing workers. So, the right to strike available to the workers will not extend to the right to obstruct those workers who exercised the right not to strike. Therefore, when there is striking workers and willing workers, necessarily there will be law and order situation and the police shall render necessary protection to the willing workers. Based on the rights of the workers upheld in Gwalior Rayons case, this is a case where police protection shall be directed to be given to uphold the rights of those workers who do not participate in the strike. On that reason also, the contention that the decision inn KSMW Union case (1994 (1) KLT 417) requires consideration cannot be accepted. 7. It is contended by the unions that they are not obstructing the willing workers. They are only requesting the management staff not to enter the factory. Their agitation is peaceful. But the management shall not be allowed to take away the finished or semi finished products, as that will demoralise the workers. 7A. In this case, the management has specifically pleaded that they are manufacturing chemicals which includes explosive items. It is also stated that they have to honour certain demands towards VSSC. It is also submitted that the strike is only partial. There will be continued production and there will be lack of space to store the finished goods. Therefore, the finished, semi finished goods and also the raw-materials stored shall be allowed to be taken out of the factory premises. During the course of argument, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that they do not want to take any raw materials already stored in the factory. They want to take out only finished or semi finished goods. When such finished goods are chemicals, which includes explosive chemicals and when there are commitments on the part of the petitioner to supply goods, naturally that has to be allowed. The unions have no case that movement of such goods will adversely affect the financial claims regarding wages etc. which the workmen have against the company as contended in the case leading to the decision in 1994 (1) KLT 417. In the above circumstances, I as satisfied that the petitioner has revealed a perfect case for direction to render police protection. which the workmen have against the company as contended in the case leading to the decision in 1994 (1) KLT 417. In the above circumstances, I as satisfied that the petitioner has revealed a perfect case for direction to render police protection. Accordingly the respondents 2 to 4 are directed to render police protection to the petitioner, at the petitioner's cost, in the matter of free ingress and egress of the willing workers, staff and managerial personnel, and also to remove any finished and semi finished goods from the godown inside the factory premises and for free movement of vehicles inside and outside the factory premises. If there is any obstruction from the part of striking workers such obstruction shall be removed by the police. It is further made clear that the protection granted shall not be made use of, either by the management or by the police, to suppress any peaceful agitation resorted to by respondents 6, 7 and 8 unions to pursue their demands. Original Petition is allowed to the above extent. There will be no order as to costs.