A.M.Shaffique, J. This writ petition is filed seeking police protection.
2. The petitioner, being the Managing Partner of a cashew factory, has approached this Court, alleging that the functioning of factory has been destructed and obstructed by respondents 4 to 19 and their men. According to the petitioner, labour dispute had been raised by respondents 4 to 19 regarding wages and they are conducting strike and demonstration in front of the factory, thereby obstructing the normal functioning of the factory and preventing the willing workers to carryout their work. As a result of the obstruction, the petitioner, being an exporter of goods, is unable to export the goods in time as per the contractual terms, as a result of which the petitioner is put to irreparable hardship and loss.
3. Though the petitioner had submitted complaint as Ext.P1 to the police seeking police protection, no action has been taken by the police in this regard and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4, 12, 13, 15, 18 and 19 and also respondents 6 and 8. It is inter alia, contended by the party respondents that minimum wages are not being paid in the factory which has resulted in conducting a peaceful demonstration. According to them, they have not obstructed the functioning of the factory in any manner, however, the intention of the petitioner is to bring the workers, who are not normally engaged in the factory and thereby creating a situation that the agitation is defeated. It is also contended that, though the matter had been taken up before the District Labour Officer, the petitioner is not participating in any of the meetings convened by the District Labour Officer, as a result of which the issue still is not resolved and no conciliation proceedings could proceed further.
5. The learned Government Pleader on instruction, submits that appropriate protection has been granted by the police as per the interim direction issued by this Court on 04.11.2014 and the shed which was constructed near the gate has been removed with the police assistance.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for party respondents and the learned Government Pleader as well.
7. The main issue between the petitioner and the workers, who are conducting strike is with reference to the dispute relating to the payment of wages. According to the workers, wages given by the petitioner is not satisfactory and that outside workers are being allowed to work in the factory.
8. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner it is stated that they are not engaging any outside workers and only when an urgent requirement of excess work is available that certain outside workers are used. Otherwise, they are working the factory only with their workers who are in the muster rolls and who are willing to work. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, only about ten workers are creating the problem and as far as the other workers are concerned, they are satisfied with the work allotted to them and the wages paid. The learned counsel also submits that they are ready and willing to attend any meeting that is convened by the labour department in this regard.
9. Learned Counsel, Sri.Chandramohan Das, submits that the petitioner should be directed to appear before any officer of the labour department so that the matter could be resolved. This claim is not opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it is stated that the petitioner have already attended several meetings convened by various parties to resolve the dispute and it was only on account of the negative attitude taken by the respondent workers that the matter could not be settled.
10. As matters stand now, after interim directions were issued by this Court, it is submitted by both parties, including the learned Government Pleader that there is no law and order problem and the agitation going on in front of the factory is peaceful. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is no obstruction as of now.
Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of as under:
(a) If there is any further obstruction to the functioning of the factory, respondents 2 and 3 shall ensure that there is no obstruction caused to the functioning of the factory and law and order is maintained.
(b) That the party respondents are at liberty to take up the matter before the District Labour Officer and in the meetings so convened by the officers of the labour department, the petitioner shall participate in the conciliation process.
Sd/-
ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE das