Management has a legal right to engage workers of their choice. In the absence of any legal prohibition or an agreement between the parties for engaging workers of their choice management can engage their own workers of their choice.  [Midland Rubber and Produce Co. vs. Superintendent of Police . 1998 (2) KLT 365 = 1998(2) KLJ 215. Dr.AR.Lakshmanan & D.Sreedevi (J&J)]

 The union is claiming that their members alone should be entrusted with the work of loading and unloading.  The union is not able to point out any provision of law or custom under which it is conferred with the right of doing the loading and unloading work in the petitioner's establishment.  When any such right is claimed not on behalf of any identified persons but on behalf of a group, the claim has to be founded on some law or on some custom having the force of law.  If any right of the union under the Head load Workers Act are being violated as alleged, it is for them to bring it to the notice of the appropriate authorities and seek relief, instead of taking law into their hands and preventing the petitioner from carrying the operations in his establishment.  [Krishnan Jayadeven v. S.I. of Police, 1988 (2) KLT SN 16, T.L.Viswanatha Iyer (J)]

The right to demonstrate and the right to strike are important weapons in the armoury of the workers.  This is recognised as a mode of redress for solving the grievances of the workers.  Even the right to strike is not absolute.  Certain restrictions are provided in the Industrial Disputes Act itself.  The interest of the establishment and the institution must be paramount to all concerned, especially to the workmen engaged therein.  If the workmen resort to force and their actions amount to commission of offences under the ordinary law of the land, police will have to take effective steps to prevent the same and to bring the offenders to due process of law.  Under the guise of labour agitation no one can be permitted to take law into his own hands.  Any laches on the part of the police in this direction will affect the industrial peace in the State.  When they resort to such activities the police will have to intervene and maintain law and order.  [Balakrishna Transport v. Supdt. of Police, 1990 (1) KLT 435, K.Sreedharan (J)]

Dispute regarding title and possession over property - Petition for police protection - Not property for High Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.  [George Mirante v. State of Kerala, 1990 (2) KLT 89 = 1990 (2) KLJ 147, T.LViswanatha Iyer (J)]

Scheme framed under Head Load Workers Act, has not extended to the area, owner has right to engage his own workers to carry out the work.  Union of Head Load Workers cannot insist that they alone have the right to do the head load work.  Writ petition not maintainable for police protection. Writ petition for police protection - Duty of the police - exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226; explained. [Abdul Kareem v. Uniikamma, 1990 (2) KLT 799, K.A. Nayar (J)]

Kerala Headload Workers  Act - Registered workers of the locality - Permanent workers who are not having registration - Not entitled to protection - Against the scheme . 1998(2) KLT 887. [Samyuktha Thozhilali Union vs Omana Johnson. RP.No. 570/2000 in OP.No. 32616 of 2000 K.A.Abdul Gafoor (J)]

Civil dispute regarding title and possession of property, police protection not to be given unless the civil court has finally decided the dispute in favour of the applicant. [Jhanadas and ors vs Balaraj. ILR 2000(1) Ker 5. P.K.Balasubramanyan & T.M.Hassan Pillai (J&J)]

Court ordering grant of police protection - Government cannot demand charges from citizens for affording police protection to remove or prevent obstruction to a lawful activity carried on by a citizen in exercise of his constitutional right. [District Supdt. of Police v. George, 2000 (1) KLT 628.  K. Narayana Kurup & T.M. Hassan Pillai (JJ)]  

Management has a legal right to engage workers of their choice. In the absence of any legal prohibition or an agreement between the parties for engaging workers of their choice management can engage their own workers of their choice.  [Midland Rubber and Produce Co. vs. Superintendent of Police . 1998 (2) KLT 365 = 1998(2) KLJ 215. Dr.AR.Lakshmanan & D.Sreedevi (J&J)]

 The union is claiming that their members alone should be entrusted with the work of loading and unloading.  The union is not able to point out any provision of law or custom under which it is conferred with the right of doing the loading and unloading work in the petitioner's establishment.  When any such right is claimed not on behalf of any identified persons but on behalf of a group, the claim has to be founded on some law or on some custom having the force of law.  If any right of the union under the Head load Workers Act are being violated as alleged, it is for them to bring it to the notice of the appropriate authorities and seek relief, instead of taking law into their hands and preventing the petitioner from carrying the operations in his establishment.  [Krishnan Jayadeven v. S.I. of Police, 1988 (2) KLT SN 16, T.L.Viswanatha Iyer (J)]

The right to demonstrate and the right to strike are important weapons in the armoury of the workers.  This is recognised as a mode of redress for solving the grievances of the workers.  Even the right to strike is not absolute.  Certain restrictions are provided in the Industrial Disputes Act itself.  The interest of the establishment and the institution must be paramount to all concerned, especially to the workmen engaged therein.  If the workmen resort to force and their actions amount to commission of offences under the ordinary law of the land, police will have to take effective steps to prevent the same and to bring the offenders to due process of law.  Under the guise of labour agitation no one can be permitted to take law into his own hands.  Any laches on the part of the police in this direction will affect the industrial peace in the State.  When they resort to such activities the police will have to intervene and maintain law and order.  [Balakrishna Transport v. Supdt. of Police, 1990 (1) KLT 435, K.Sreedharan (J)]

Dispute regarding title and possession over property - Petition for police protection - Not property for High Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.  [George Mirante v. State of Kerala, 1990 (2) KLT 89 = 1990 (2) KLJ 147, T.LViswanatha Iyer (J)]

Scheme framed under Head Load Workers Act, has not extended to the area, owner has right to engage his own workers to carry out the work.  Union of Head Load Workers cannot insist that they alone have the right to do the head load work.  Writ petition not maintainable for police protection. Writ petition for police protection - Duty of the police - exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226; explained. [Abdul Kareem v. Uniikamma, 1990 (2) KLT 799, K.A. Nayar (J)]