Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
HARINATH.N, J.
The Indian Cement Limited - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14515 Of 2025
Decided On : 19-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S Dushyanth Reddy
For the Respondent: GP For Home
The State has a duty to maintain law and order and ensure the unimpeded operation of private enterprises while labor disputes should be addressed through appropriate legal forums.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Maintenance of Law and Order - The case addresses the failure of police to protect a manufacturing unit from agitating contract laborers, raising demands for employment - The Court emphasized that maintenance of law and order is a primary responsibility of the State - Orders were made for police protection to ensure worker safety and operational continuity - The laborers were advised to seek redress through the Labour Court. (Paras 10, 11, 16)
(B) Employment Law - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Recognized the Labour Court as the appropriate forum for contract labor to address their grievances legally. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a cement manufacturer, faced stoppage of operations due to demands from contract labor possibly instigated by local politicians, leading to security threats and closure of the facility.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner's operations must not be hindered and law and order must be maintained by the police.
Issues: The main issues included the State's duty to protect the operations of the factory and the legal recourse available to the contract labor.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that law enforcement must ensure non-obstruction of factory operations while allowing labor disputes to be resolved through proper legal channels.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directives for police protection.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner is a cement manufacturing unit. (Para 1) |
| 2. contract labour raised illegal demands. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. police provided security but suggested negotiations. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. concern over the impact of factory closure. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. labour court is appropriate forum for grievances. (Para 11 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. court directs police to ensure law and order. (Para 12 , 13 , 16) |
| 7. writ petition disposed with directions. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
HARINATH.N, J.
1. The petitioner is a cement manufacturing unit established at Yerraguntla, Kadapa District. The petitioner is a subsidiary unit of Ultra Tech Cements. During the course of their business, the petitioner has engaged the services of labour contractors for the packing and loading of cement bags. The licenced labour contractor has an agreement with the petitioner company and payment is made to the licenced labour contractor on a tonnage basis.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, at the instance of the local politician, the contract labour have raised illegal demands of absorbing them on the rolls of the company. The contract labour are employed by the contractor and paid by the contractor. It is submitted that the petitioner company has no agreement or arrangement with any of the individual labour, who are employed by the contractor.
3. It is submitted that the contract employees have stalled the packaging and loading of cement bags from 20.04.2025. Repeated letters were sent to the contractor to resume the packing and loading work. It is further submitted that the petitioner is informed that the local politician is instigating the workmen to raise illegal demands and stall the operation of the plant by closing the main gates. The brute force of the agitating workmen is causing a threat and fear of assault to the employees and other staff. It is submitted that on 05.06.2025, about ten packaging contract workers, along with about 90 other outsiders, attempted to break open the company’s main gate. It is also submitted that the petitioner brought the same to the notice of the police. However, the police have not extended the required support.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the contract employees have laid a siege to the plant from 05.06.2025 and have prevented entry and exit of the employees and vehicles into the plant. In this regard, the petitioner submitted two other complaints to the 4th respondent. It is submitted that several contract workmen are willing to resume work. However, the unruly mob sitting out at the gate has resulted in the closure of the manufacturing facility at the plant. It is submitted that the closure of the plant would not serve any purpose and the State would also be losing revenue in the form of non-payment of taxes. The petitioner is seeking police protection for facilitating the ingress and egress into the factory premises for the employees and other staff.
5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the Home Department, on written instructions, submits that the police have provided security with one sub-inspector along with 12 personnel from 06.06.2025 onwards. It is also submitted that the petitioner was advised to take necessary steps to bring the issue to the attention of the concerned revenue, labour and industries department. It is submitted that these departments are competent to initiate appropriate action and facilitate effective negotiations with the contract labours and the local villagers. The 4th respondent in the written instructions submits that the local villagers are referred to as ‘sons of the soil’.
6. It is further submitted that instead of initiating appropriate action to resolve the issue with the labour the petitioner has approached the District Collector, YSR Kadapa District, with a request to provide additional security. It is submitted that from 12.06.2025 onwards, the respondents have deployed two sub-inspectors with 20 police personnel with the int
