The Commonwealth Trust (India) Ltd. vs Comtrust Waving Factory, The Commissioner of Police and The Station House, Officer

K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 2 and 3 to afford necessary police protection to the petitioner, its staff, officials and its Directors for the free ingress and egress from the premises of the petitioner Company.

ii) Declare that the first respondent and workers owing allegiance to the said respondent have no right whatsoever in constructing a tent/hut in the premises of the petitioner.

iii) Declare that first respondent and workers owing allegiance to the said respondent have no right whatsoever in indulging in criminal activities against the interest of the petitioner Company.

iv) Declare that the first respondent and workers owing allegiance to the said respondent have no right to resort to unlawful means of agitation in and outside the factory premises.

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

Petitioner is running three factories. Ext.P2 is a settlement between five trade unions and the petitioner. It is stated that a few workers are obstructing and they have put up a tent. A Counter Affidavit is filed by the first respondent to which a Reply Affidavit also is filed. We heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

It is the case of the first respondent that they are only carrying on peaceful agitation and having regard to the place where the tent is located and having regard to the present position of the Company, no prejudice will be caused to the Company. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has a right to access to the Company and if at all, the first respondent is aggrieved by Ext.P2, the proper remedy is to take it up before the Authorities under law.

Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we feel that the following order can be passed and the Writ Petition is disposed of:

Learned Counsel for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent will re-locate the tent at a place where there is no obstruction to any of the Gates and also without obstructing the entry to any building. He would submit that this will be done within ten days from today. If the first respondent does not do so within the time as submitted, the second respondent will inspect the site and indicate a place where there is no obstruction to any of the Gates or entry to any of the buildings, so that the peaceful agitation can go on only from that site. We also direct respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate protection to the staff, officials and Directors of the petitioner Company so that free ingress and egress to the premises of the Company are not obstructed. Of course, we further make it clear that this will be subject to the further condition that under cover of this Judgment, the petitioner shall not be permitted to remove any machinery from the premises of the Company without permission of this Court. We further direct that respondents 2 and 3 will see that there is no further tent or hut put up by the first respondent within the factory premises. It is open to the petitioner to seek modification of this Judgment if there is a change of circumstances.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner will produce a copy of this Judgment before respondents 2 and 3 for due compliance.