( 1 ) THE petitioner is a trade Union. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the respondent-Police Commissioner refusing to grant permission to the workers for installing mandap at the Reliance gate and permitting 200 to 250 workmen to sit there. By Annexure A the General Secretary of the petitioner-Union requested the respondent-Police Commissioner to grant permission as stated above. By order dated 21/08/1987 the respondent-Commissioner of Police City of Ahmedabad has refused permission on the ground that it was not proper to grant permission in the public interest from the point of view of law and order

( 2 ) AS per the relevant Rules and Regulations framed under Sec. 33 of the Bombay Police Act (the Regulations and Conduct of Assembly and Procession (Ahmedabad Police Commissioner Area) Rules 1975 the authorised officer can certainly refuse to grant permission sought for. But the permission can be refused on the ground mentioned in Rule 8. Rule 8 inter alia provides that the permission sought for may be refused if the authorised officer is of the opinion that granting of such permission will not be in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India the security of the State friendly relations with Foreign States public order decency or morality. The Rule does not authorise an officer concerned to refuse permission on the ground of law and order and public interest. Moreover sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 requires that whenever the permission is to be refused the reasons thereof are required to be mentioned. In the impugned order to say the least no reason whatsoever is mentioned except stating that it is not in the public interest from the point of view of law and order. This is no reason at all. It must be borne in mind that the workers have fundamental right to assemble and make demonstration for ventilating their grievances. The grievance may be against the Government or it may be against the management of a company or a factory. The workers fundamental right to assemble and if need be to take out procession cannot be unreasonably restricted so as to stifle that right completely. If the workers are to assemble outside the factory gate in peaceful manner for showing their strength and unity in order to impress upon the management about the justness and fairness of their demands the permission could not have been refused on the ground which is not germane to the provisions of the Rules in question. To do so would amount to denying the workers legitimate right of ventilating their grievances against the stand taken by the management which according to them is unreasonable.

( 3 ) BE it noted that in a contest between capital and labour the authorities charged with duties to maintain law and order cannot and should not take sides with either of the two warring factions. Just as the rights of the management (i. e. that of capital) are required to be protected the rights of workmen (i. e. that of labour) are also required to be protected. In such a contest balance has got to be struck by the authorities Even the questions of slaw and order and that of public order have got to be examined and understood in the context of the dispute between the parties. The approach should not be from the point of view of colonial hang-over which has its roots in the pre-constitutional days. The Constitution does not give that importance to the protection of property and property rights as against the legitimate rights of the workers. The Constitution has struck balance between the two. Undue importance to the property rights and the protection of the propertied class as against the workers fundamental rights is not called for. Whenever there is a clash or contest between capital and labour it does not behave to the executive authorities or for that matter to any constitutional functionary to take sides with the management or with the propertied class. If the approach is