Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ITC LIMITED versus INSPECTOR OF POLICE

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ITC Limited v. Inspector of Police - WA.No.2204 of 2002 [2007] RD-TN 23 (3 January 2007)


In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated: 03.01.2007

Coram:

The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR


Writ Appeal No.2204 of 2002
and
W.A.M.P.Nos.3765 and 3766 of 2002



I T C Limited,
represented by G.M.K.Raju,
Chief Executive,
Packaging & Printing Division (SBU),
Thiruvottriyur,
Chennai-600 019. ..Appellant


..vs..


1. The Inspector of Police,
H-1, Ennore Police Station,
Chennai-600 057.

2. The Deputy Superintendent
of Police,
Ennore Division,
Ramakrishna Nagar,
Chennai-600 057.

3. Indian Tobacco Company
Employees Union,
(Regd.No.1852),
rep.by its General Secretary,
A.Joseph Kennedy,
No.334, T.H.Road,
Chennai-600 019. ..Respondents


Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the Order dated 14.06.2002 passed in W.P.No.20422 of 2002.


For Appellant : Mr.Sriram Panchu, Senior Counsel
for Mr.G.Anbumani

For Respondents : Mr.K.Elango, Spl.G.P.,for R1 & R2
Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran for
M/s.Row & Reddy for R3



JUDGMENT



(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.,) The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 14.06.2002 made in W.P.No.20422 of 2002, in and by which, the learned Judge permitted the petitioner-Employees Union to hold a gate meeting of its members on 22.06.2002 at the South Gate entrance of the Indian Tobacco Company, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai-19, to be conducted in a peaceful manner with the members of the Association not indulging in any provocation or unlawful activities. Since the appellant management was not a party in the writ petition, after obtaining permission, the above appeal was filed.

2. Heard Mr.Sriram Panchu, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr.K.Elango, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for 3rd respondent-Employees Union.

3. Mr.Sriram Panchu, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, by drawing our attention to the relief sought for and granted by the learned Judge, submitted that inasmuch as the management was not a party in the writ petition, the learned Judge ought not to have granted permission to hold a meeting in front of the gate of its factory. He further contended that inasmuch as permission was granted to have a meeting in front of South Gate of the factory, it is but proper to hear the appellant management. He also contended that in view of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.11.2002, particularly clause 29(f), the writ petition filed by A.Joseph Kennedy claiming himself as a General Secretary is not maintainable.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for contesting 3rd respondent-Employees Union submitted that in view of the fact that permission was granted to hold gate meeting for one day i.e.on 22.06.2002 and of the fact that the meeting was conducted as permitted, as on date nothing survives for adjudication and according to him, the writ appeal is to be dismissed as infructuous. He further contended that the Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.11.2002 is yet to be approved as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, no credence need be given to the terms and conditions prescribed therein.

5. We verified the relief sought for in the writ petition, impugned order passed by the Inspector of Police, H-1, Ennore Police Station as well as the direction issued by the learned Judge, which is challenged in this writ appeal. We are of the view that in a matter like this, it is but proper to hear both parties, namely, workers as well as the management, particularly permission is sought for to hold a meeting in front of the gate of the company. In view of the fact that the meeting was conducted on 22.06.2002, we are not inclined to issue further direction. Likewise, we are not expressing anything about the contention relating to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.11.2002 as well as the locus standi of the writ petitioner, namely, A.Joseph Kennedy, General Secretary, in filing the writ petition. We are of the view that everyone has right to express their views peacefully. At the same time, it should not affect the interest of the others, particularly, the affairs of the Company and its properties. Though the workmen or their representatives or the persons authorised can have a meeting or gathering to air their grievance, it should be quite away, preferably 100 metres away from the main gate of the factory. We also make it clear that for holding such meeting, a proper application has to be made before the authority concerned and it is for the competent authority to grant such permission, taking note of various aspects including law and order, safety of the general public as well as the management. With the above observation, the writ appeal is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. gl

To

1. The Inspector of Police,

H-1, Ennore Police Station,

Chennai-600 057.

2. The Deputy Superintendent

of Police,

Ennore Division,

Ramakrishna Nagar,

Chennai-600 057.


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.