High Court Kerala High Court

O/E/N India Limited vs State Of Kerala on 8 February, 2011

Kerala High Court
O/E/N India Limited vs State Of Kerala on 8 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3673 of 2011(H)


1. O/E/N INDIA LIMITED,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SRI.CHERIAN VARGHESE,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :08/02/2011

 O R D E R
 THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
                 --------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C).No.3673 OF 2011
                 --------------------------------------
           Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011

                         J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~~~~~

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

Service complete. A counter affidavit is stated to have

been placed on record.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Trade

Unions as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. As of now, it is beyond dispute that there are certain

contentious labour issues between the parties. That has

necessarily to settle down through appropriate mechanism for

redressal of grievances. The disputes, if any, pending for

conciliation, negotiation or adjudication as dispute will have to

be necessarily carried on. However, in the interregnum, having

regard to the nature of the activities of the petitioners, it is

necessary that they are provided adequate police protection to

W.P.(C) No.3673/2011 2

ensure ingress and egress of all necessary vehicles, men and

material for the proper carrying out of the affairs of the

petitioners. The Trade Unions appear to be apprehensive about

the engagement of the apprentices and people who are not

otherwise on the regular rolls of the petitioners. We clarify that

we do not express anything on the merits of these aspects and

under the guise of this judgment no apprentice would be

confirmed or any other person permitted to work on permanent

basis. All these will be subject to settlement between the

parties. We also record that there is a training institute inside

the premises of the factory of the petitioners. The work in that

unit will also be permitted to be carried on smoothly.

Respondent Nos.2 to 8 will ensure that there is no obstruction

whatsoever for the petitioners to carry out any of the aforesaid.

We further direct that respondent No.12 will take immediate

steps to have a negotiated settlement or to proceed otherwise as

regards the labour disputes administration.

4. We clarify that this judgment will not stand in the way

of the Trade Unions having peaceful agitation without in any

W.P.(C) No.3673/2011 3

manner hindering the work of the establishment.

Writ Petition ordered accordingly.

(THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

(P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)

ps