IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1211 of 2011(B)
1. THE PATTAMBI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.P.VELAYUDHAN, S/O.MADAMBI,
... Respondent
2. KAMALAKSHI, W/O.VELAYUDHAN,
3. MADA, S/O.MADAMBI,
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :20/01/2011
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 1211 of 2011-B
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The petitioner is a Service Co-operative Bank. The 1st
respondent is a former (dismissed) employee of the said Bank.
Respondents 2 and 3 are the wife and brother respectively of the
said dismissed employee. The petitioner has come to this Court
with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the
Constitution to respondents 4 to 6 to afford police protection to
the petitioner/Bank against illegal, wanton, contumacious and
violent conduct of respondents 1 to 3.
2. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent was
dismissed as early as in 2006. No industrial dispute has been
raised and there is no proceedings initiated to challenge the
validity of the termination of employment. But after about 4
W.P.(C) No. 1211 of 2011 -: 2 :-
years of such termination, in December, 2010 respondents 1 to 3
are resorting to the objectionable contumacious and violent
conduct of obstructing the customers of the Bank from coming to
the Bank. Respondents 1 to 3 enter the premises unjustifiably.
They block the staircase, thereby virtually interfering with the
ingress and egress to the Bank by the Bank authorities, Bank’s
employees and the Bank’s customers. The short prayer is that
police may be directed to afford protection to the petitioner
against such contumacious and violent conduct on the part of
respondents 1 to 3.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 have been served; but they have not
chosen to enter appearance. The learned Government Pleader,
after taking instructions, submits that in the perception of
respondents 4 to 6 there is no threat posed to the working of the
petitioner establishment by the conduct of respondents 1 to 3.
They are not obstructing the egress and ingress to the Bank.
They are not resorting to any violent conduct. It is true that
they are agitating against the termination of the 1st respondent
and are claiming amounts from the Bank which are allegedly due
to the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank contests the
assertions made by the learned Government Pleader. Ingress
W.P.(C) No. 1211 of 2011 -: 3 :-
and egress to the Bank is substantially interrupted. The Bank is
not permitted to transact business in peace. Respondents 1 to 3
are trespassing into the premises of the Bank. The staircase is
being obstructed. It is, in these circumstances, that directions
under Art.226 of the Constitution are claimed, submits the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. We have considered all the relevant inputs.
Undoubtedly, respondent No.1 and his relatives, respondents 2
and 3, have the legal rights in our democracy to raise objections
and to demonstrate against the conduct of the petitioner/Bank
against which they have objection. But respondents 1 to 3 have
got to ensure that their rights to peacefully demonstrate does
not offend the working of the Bank. Respondents 1 to 3 have
not entered appearance. But it appears that there is a dispute
between the petitioner and the police officials as to the manner
in which respondents 1 to 3 are performing the alleged
demonstration. We are satisfied that appropriate directions
deserve to be issued. We do, however, take note of the
submission of the learned Government Pleader, on behalf of
respondents 4 to 6, that if there is any obstruction to the working
of the petitioner/Bank, if there is any trespass into the Bank by
respondents 1 to 3 and if the ingress and egress is blocked by
W.P.(C) No. 1211 of 2011 -: 4 :-
the presence of respondents 1 to 3 on the staircase, necessary
action shall be taken to abate such action.
6. We accept that submission of the learned Government
Pleader. We accordingly allow this writ petition in part to the
above extent.
Sd/-
R. BASANT
(Judge)
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
(Judge)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge