Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PONMUDI RUBBERS LIMITED versus THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CRUMB

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PONMUDI RUBBERS LIMITED v. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CRUMB - WP(C) No. 8451 of 2007(F) [2007] RD-KL 15791 (16 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 8451 of 2007(F)

1. PONMUDI RUBBERS LIMITED,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CRUMB
... Respondent

2. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CRUMB

3. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CRUMB

4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

Dated :16/08/2007

O R D E R

K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.

W.P.(C) No.8451 of 2007

Dated, this the 16th day of August, 2007



JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner is a company. It was running a crumb rubber factory. Owing to financial difficulties it is not functioning now. The petitioner proposes to close it down permanently. Some of the workmen have already accepted voluntary retirement benefits and left the unit. The others are trying to destroy the property of the factory under the guise of agitations. Therefore, this writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 4 to 6 to provide adequate and effective protection to the property of the company, viz. the factory at Meenmutty, Palode and Head Office at Door No.TC 44/2490 Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram as well as to the management, staff from any untoward act or interference on the part of respondents 1 to 3, their supporters and sympathizers, and

b) such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The party respondents submitted that they were only peacefully assembling and registering their protest against the closure of the unit. They would not cause any obstruction or destroy any property. On the strength of the interim order passed by this court, the workmen have been removed from the gate of the factory and they are prevented from holding demonstrations. It is also submitted that there is a scheme for reviving the unit at the instance of the Government. WPC No.8451/2007 Page numbers

3. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that there was no untoward incident reported and no occasion arose for registering any case against the workmen or others.

4. The problem of closure of the unit has to be negotiated and settled by the parties concerned before other forums. The police has no role in it. But, if there is any breach of peace, the police shall interfere and maintain law and order. But this direction shall not be taken as a direction against the workmen. In other words, the peaceful demonstration or other sathyagrahas or meetings held by the workmen shall not be interfered with by the police. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGE

HARUN-UL-RASHID,

JUDGE.

mt/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.