Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 719
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD., – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
WP(C)/602/2020
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.), SMT.NISHA GEORGE, SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.), SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY(ERNAKULAM), SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN, K.T.THOMAS, SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN
The right to strike must be executed peacefully; violence infringes upon the rights of employers and disrupts business operations.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes - Labour Rights - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 10, 12 - The court reiterated that while employees have the right to strike, violence and intimidation in the pursuit of those rights infringe on management's ability to conduct business. The indemnity for the employer's property and employees was emphasized.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a non-banking finance company, faced backlash from employees after announcing branch closures due to market downturn. This led to a prolonged strike characterized by violence, prompting the company to seek police protection and reopening the matter in court following failed conciliation.
Issues: Whether the striking employees could engage in violent protests and obstruct the operations of the petitioner company while enforcing their demands.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while employees have the right to engage in strikes, such actions must be conducted peacefully, without resorting to violence or intimidation against management or non-striking employees.
Final Decision: The court ordered police protection for the petitioner's employees and stated that future protests must not hinder business operations.
JUDGMENT
Muthoot Finance Ltd., the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.602 of 2020 is a non-banking company with more than 3000 branches all over the country.
In the State of Kerala, they are stated to have more than 800 branches. 2. The petitioners contend that they faced a downturn in market conditions and in order to stay afloat, they decided to close 44 branches after informing the statutory authorities and in compliance with law. When their decision was published in the newspapers, the employees were not pleased and they decided to go on strike. The strike was vicious and the petitioner had to close down almost all branches for about 52 days. When physical harm was caused to the willing employees, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(C).No.22610 of 2019. This Court ordered the parties to submit themselves to conciliation proceedings and the Additional Labour Commissioners were ordered to intervene. Sri.Liji J. Vadakkedom, an experienced and able advocate practicing before this Court was appointed as the observer to guide the parties to come to a settlement. By the combined efforts of all concerned, the conciliation was successful and a settlement was arrived at. This Court closed the writ petition recording the tripartite settlement holding that it shall have the sanctity of one entered into under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , however with further observations. It was ordered that if there are any further issues between the management and the workers, they shall seek assistance from the Labour Department of the State rather than seeking help from agencies and outfits, which are extraneous to the real concerns.
3. However, the settlement arrived did not last for long.
4. On 10.12.2019, a group of employees staged a dharna in front of the head office and the management as well as the willing employees were threatened. Contending that certain leaders who spoke during the meeting raised open threats of physical harm, the management lodged a complaint before the police. Complaining of inaction by the police, W.P.
(C).No.33916 of 2019 was filed seeking the following reliefs:
i) to direct the official respondents to provide sufficient police protection to the employees working at the head office and thereafter, so long as the agitation continues, directing the 4th respondent Union to keep a distance of 50 metres from the entry to the office of the head office without obstructing or preventing the free movement of the office staff and others who are coming to the office in connection with the business transaction, without blocking the entry to the office for the employees and customers or obstructing them in any manner as well as for the property of the head office, pending disposal of the writ petition.
ii) direct the police to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation ordinance/Act, 2019 as against all those who are involved in causing damages to the property, pending disposal of the writ petition.
5. This Court by an interim order dated 11.12.2019 directed the
2nd respondent to remove the members and associates of the 4th respondent trade union from the premises of the head office of M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. located at Banerji Road to a distance of at least 15 metres away from the premises so as to ensure the smooth functioning of the office. It was further ordered that the 2nd respondent shall ensure that the removal of the members and associates of the 4th respondent shall not affect the activities or cause hindrance to the ingress and egress of others.
6. During the pendency of the writ petition, it was reported before this Court that while the Managing Director of the company was travelling in a car, he was attacked and some injuries were inflicted. This Court by order dated 07.01.2020 took note of the fact situation and directed the police to ensure the safety of the employees.
7. Immediately thereafter, W.P.(C).No.602 of 2020
