The main legal principle established is that when dismissed workmen engage in conduct amounting to criminal trespass and wrongful restraint, the police have a duty to take necessary action to prevent the commission of offences and can be directed by the court to do so through a writ of mandamus.

Per Tukol, J.—This is an unusual writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents including the Commissioner of Police (respondent 2) praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction to take steps for the prevention of commission of offences by the dismissed workmen and to remove the dismissed workmen from the premises of the petitioner-factory so as to prevent them from indulging in the commission of further offences and for taking such action as is necessary under the law to maintain law and order.

2. The facts and the circumstances under which the present writ petition has been filed may be briefly summarized as follows : The petitioner is the Mysore Machinery Manufacturers, Ltd. This factory is engaged in the manufacture of plant and machinery for supply to various manufacturing units and to other factories. It has a capital of about Rs. 20 lakhs in the form of machinery installed within the premises, and the capacity of its workmen attending to the various operations is about 500. On 1 April 1967, the workmen entered the factory, as usual, for work and nothing happened till about 4 p.m. on that day. When the first shift came to an end, 270 workmen refused to leave the premises and the director in charge of the management passed an order of dismissal against those workmen. The workmen who were so dismissed continued to remain within the premises of the factory in spite of the warning that their conduct amounted to misconduct as offending the various standing orders of the company. These workmen had stopped work and a chargesheet was issued against them on April 4, 1967 asking them to show cause why action should not be taken against them for acts of misconduct detailed in the chargesheet. It is pertinent to mention that this chargesheet and show cause notice were issued after setting aside the earlier order of dismissal of April 1, 1967. On April 6, 1967, the workmen filed their statements denying the allegations made against them and contending that there was no strike on their part but that there was illegal lockout on the part of the management. They stated that

"overstay inside the factory after doing out work as usual is not a strike; it is not an offence as alleged."

3. It is unnecessary for us to narrate the contentions of the workmen in this writ petition for two reasons : firstly, they are not parties to the present writ petition, and secondly the State Government has made a reference under S. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Acts, 1947, to the additional industrial tribunal at Bangalore, on April 25, 1967 requiring the tribunal to decide whether the stoppage of work was a strike or a lockout and whether the dismissal of 267 workmen was justified or not and whether they were entitled to reinstatement with back-wages and continuity of service.

4. Reverting to the material facts of the present case, it may be stated that even before April 4, 1967, the director of the petitioner-company had addressed a letter to the sub-inspector of police (annexure C. 1) on April 1, 1967. It refers to some previous discussions between that officer and the director, and to the requests that were made by the management. On April 13, 1967, the director addressed two communications (annexure D and E) respectively to the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate and to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, and the third, on May 4, 1967 to the Secretary to the Government of Mysore in the Home Department. The communications addressed to the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of Police are identically worded. It is enough to mention that so far as the District Magistrate is concerned, he informed the Commissioner of Police (annexure G) on April 19, 1967 requesting him

"to look into the alleged disorderly and illegal actions of the workers said to be taking place in the premises of the factory and to take such action as deemed fit in the circumstances."

5. The comm