The court's inherent power under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, to issue directions to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court.

ORDER :- The facts and the reliefs prayed for in both these petitions being substantially the same, they are dealt with together. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 561-A, Cr. P. C. against the respondents, the Commissioner of Police, Madras, and the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) Southern Range, Madras, praying for a direction to the respondents to do their duty and evict the labourers (27 persons) from the factory premises of the petitioner at the close of working hours. The Writ Petition has been filed to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate directions to the respondents, praying for the same relief as in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. It is stated that the Writ Petition has been filed by way of abundant caution in case it was felt that the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition could not afford an adequate remedy. The petitioner filed affidavits in support of both the petitions. The second respondent filed counter-affidavits.

The persons who were sought to be removed from the factory premises were impleaded as parties to both the petitions on their applications and they filed their affidavits.

2. The facts and the circumstances under which these two petitions have been filed are briefly as follows : -

3. The petitioner is a Limited Company carrying on business of the manufacture of fountain pen ink having its registered office at No. 37-L, Mount Road, Madras-32 of which T. V. Advani is the Managing Director, who filed affidavits in support of the petitions. In the Office of the petitioner, 21 Clerks and others are employed Adjacent to the office is the petitioner's factory in which 31 workmen are employed.

4. On the 18th September, 1967, twenty-seven persons mentioned in the affidavit assembled inside the factory and refused to carry out their duties at the instigation of the Union representing the said twenty-seven persons and commenced what is called "stay-in-strike".

5. There is only one shift in the petitioner's factory which is from 8 A. M. to 5-30 P. M. on week days and 8 A. M. to 1 P. M. on Saturdays. Just before the closing hours of the factory on the 18th September, 1967, the striking workmen were requested by the petitioner's representatives to leave the factory premises as they had no authority to remain in the factory after working hours and this request was made as the petitioner wanted to lock up the factory premises after working hours, in which valuable stock-in-trade, machinery etc. had been kept. As the said twenty-seven persons refused to vacate the factory premises, the petitioner posted its watchman to safeguard the property of the Company. It is stated that eighteen of the workmen were willing to continue to work; but they were prevented by the striking workmen from carrying out their duties by obstructing them by surrounding the machinery. The striking twenty-seven persons on 19th September. 1967 obstructed a lorry laden with packing cases consigned to the petitioner from entering the factory and the lorry had to return, with the packing cases. On the 21st September 1967, seven female employees were prevented from leaving the factory and were "gheraoed" for nearly 2½ hours. On the 22nd September, 1967, some of the striking workmen surrounded the petitioner's Accountant Mr. R. D. Chellappa and abused him in an attempt to intimidate him.

6. The petitioner made complaint to the Inspector of Police, 'J' Division, Saidapet, Madras-15 in respect of the incidents which took place on the 18th, 19th, 21st and 22nd September, 1967.

7. As no effective action was taken by the police, the petitioner filed a suit O. S. No. 3800 of 1967 before the 1st Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, for an injunction (a) restraining the striking workmen from obstructing the petitioner's lawful discharge of duties and preventing its loyal workers from carrying on their duties; (b) restraining the said persons from interfering with the petitioner's business, and © for a direct