IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14398 of 2008(L)
1. M/S. HOTEL AMIRHTA LTD.,
... Petitioner
2. S.HARI MURALI,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM JILLA HOTEL MAZDOOR
6. S.RAJENDRAN, RAJA BHAVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.N.NAGARESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :12/06/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
W.P.(C)NO. 14398 OF 2008
============================
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JUNE 2008
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair,J.
The first petitioner is a company which is running a hotel in
Thiruvananthapuram. The second petitioner is its Director. The
5th respondent is a Trade Union representing the workmen of the
said hotel. The 6th respondent is a worker who has been placed
under suspension, pending enquiry into the memo of charges
issued to him . The 6th respondent, who is also an activist of the
5th respondent union, approached the 5th respondent union to
redress his grievance. The petitioner submits, the Union
espousing the cause of the 6th respondent has issued Ext.P5
strike notice. Though the demands raised in Ext.P5 include
those like non-payment of P.F. and E.S.I. contribution etc., the
Union mainly pressed the demand for withdrawal of
disciplinary action against the 6th respondent. Since the
WPC.14398/2008 -2-
negotiations between the parties failed, the workmen has
started a strike from 24-4-2008. Thereafter they are causing
obstruction to the customers’ ingress and egress, to and from the
hotel and flags and posters are exhibited to give an impression
that all the workers are on strike and the hotel is not
functioning, so that the customers may go way. In the above
background, the petitioners moved the police for necessary
protection for the smooth functioning of the hotel. Since the
police did not interfer in the matter, this writ petition was filed
seeking the following reliefs:
“i) That to grant the writ of mandamus or some other
writ or order or direction to the respondent 3 and 4 to
provide sufficient and effective police protection to the
life of petitioners and members of family, co-workers,
and customers and their property.
ii)that, to grant the writ of mandamus or some other
writ or order or direction to the respondents 3 and 4
to remove the play cards(placards) and other posters
mentioning regarding illegal strikes for the sake of
WPC.14398/2008 -3-
creating intention (impression)to the customers that
the Hotel is closed.
iii) that to grant the writ of mandamus or some other
writ or order or direction to the respondents 5 to 6
not to conduct any demonstration in front of the hotel
premises at least 300 metres away from the hotel.
iv) that to grant the writ of mandamus or some other
writ or order or direction to the respondents 5 and 6
and declare that the strike organised by the
respondents 5 and 6 against the petitioners are
illegal.”
2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions,
submitted that the workmen are staging peaceful demonstration
without indulging in any obstruction or criminal activities
affecting the functioning of the hotel.
3. The 5th and 6th respondents have filed a counter affidavit
in which it is stated that the demand for payment of E.S.I. and
P.F. contribution is not a new demand raised to resist the
suspension of the 6th respondent made on 8-3-2008. The
WPC.14398/2008 -4-
demand concerning non-payment of the statutory contributions
was pending since 2006. That will be evident from Ext.R5(d). It
is also submitted that on the complaint made by the Union, the
P.F. authorities have inspected the hotel in the first week of
March. The same provoked the management . Thinking that the
6th respondent was behind the same, he was placed under
suspension. So, the Union was constrained to resort to strike
from 24-4-2008. The total strength of the workmen in the hotel
is 21 and 16 out of them are members of the 5th respondent and
they are striking work, it is submitted. It is also submitted that
the Union have no intention to take law into their hands and to
cause any physical obstruction to the customers or the loyal
workmen .
4. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dealing with
the averments in the counter affidavit of respondents five and
six.
5. Strike means cessation of work in concert by the
workmen. The same will definitely cause in-convenience to the
management. The striking workmen have no right to obstruct
WPC.14398/2008 -5-
the loyal workmen or the customers of the hotel. Loyal workmen
means those workmen who are on the rolls of the company as
on the date of commencement of the strike,i.e. 24-4-2008. The
Management have no right to recruit new workers in the place of
striking workmen. If the striking workmen or their supporters
cause obstruction to the loyal workmen coming to the hotel or
the customers, the petitioners may inform the 4th respondent
and in that event the 4th respondent shall remove the obstruction.
The police shall not interfere with the peaceful demonstrations or
such other legitimate activities undertaken by the 5th respondent
for pressing the charter demands submitted by them. The writ
petition is disposed of as above.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE
M.C. HARI RANI
ks. JUDGE