The court reinforced the right to protest within legal limits while recognizing the necessity of maintaining peace and order, without providing special police protection in this scenario.

JUDGMENT

Basant, J.

Petitioner, mother-in-law and the holder of power of attorney of the proprietor of an establishment has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 to the second respondent, a police official to afford police protection to the petitioner against the apprehended illegal, wanton and violent acts of the first respondent, an association of employees of the industrial unit of which the petitioner's son-in-

law is the proprietor.

2. According to the petitioner she is only the holder of power of attorney of her son-in-law who admittedly is not available in India now. Though the petitioner asserts that under the power of attorney she is competent only to sign papers, the power of attorney is not produced. The fact remains that all indications point to the conclusion that in the absence of the proprietor, the petitioner is managing the affairs of the unit. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent even in WPC 11061/2011 2 the conciliation proceedings before the District Labour Officer it is the petitioner who was representing the employer. For all intends and purposes the learned counsel for the first respondent asserts that the petitioner is a defacto employer. We find it absolutely safe to accept that assertion.

3. There evidently are disputes between the petitioner and the employees represented by the first respondent. The learned counsel for the first respondent in the course of argument submits that not even a certificate of experience is being issued to the employees with the transparent purpose of vexing and harassing them. They are put to considerable suffering. All that they do is to demonstrate peacefully before the petitioner. The establishment is closed. The proprietor is not available in India. In these circumstances the employees represented by the first respondent are only showing their dissent and protest against the manner in which the employer is dealing with the employees. Their right to protest may not be hampered, request the learned counsel for the first respondent. The learned counsel for the first respondent undertakes that the first respondent and his members shall not in any way indulge in any wanton, violent or culpable acts against the petitioner. They intend only to WPC 11061/2011 3 engage themselves in peaceful demonstration asserts the learned counsel for the first respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the establishment is closed and in these circumstances the petitioner apprehends that such demonstrations may be held in front of the house of the petitioner.

5. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions from the first respondent submits that in the perception of the second respondent there is no threat to the life, person or property of the petitioner. The first respondent had in fact undertaken that awaiting the orders of this Court no demonstration shall take place and no untoward incident shall be caused.

6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that the submissions/undertaking of the counsel on behalf of the first respondent can be accepted. We take note of the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader that necessary protection shall be afforded if there be any contumacious or culpable acts on the part of the first respondent and members against the petitioner. We are in these circumstances satisfied that no specific directions are necessary in the matter.

WPC 11061/2011 4

7. We are certainly of the opinion that the parties must attempt to settle the dispute in conciliation proceedings which have already been initiated by the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act .

8. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed accepting the submissions of the learned Govt. Pleader.

R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 11061/2011 5