SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

W.P.No.26989  of 2022 and WMP.No.26205 of 2022 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. The petitioner viz., Trichy Tollway Private Limited is a concessionaire under the National Highways Act as the construction work of the road in a particular stretch between Chennai and Trichy since has been entrusted to them, after completing the road work, the petitioner has been given the right of collecting the toll at two places viz., “Sengurichi” in Kallakurichi District and “Thirumandurai” in Perambalur District.

by ·

W.P.No.26989  of 2022 and WMP.No.26205 of 2022 R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

The petitioner viz., Trichy Tollway Private Limited is a concessionaire under the National Highways Act as the construction work of the road in a particular stretch between Chennai and Trichy since has been entrusted to them, after completing the road work, the petitioner has been given the right of collecting the toll at two places viz., “Sengurichi” in Kallakurichi District and “Thirumandurai” in Perambalur District.

  1. In turn the petitioner concessionaire has given the job of collecting the toll and also to maintain the rendition of account of the petitioner to the 14th respondent viz., SMK Contractor & Services Private Limited and the 14th respondent in turn entrusted to the 15th respondent viz., Lakshmi Security Service & Manpower Consultancy for the purpose of security service.
  2. While that being so, there has been an action of retrenchment of

some workers or employers working in these two Toll Plazas and in this regard in Sengurichi, 26 employees were retrenched and in Thirumandurai, 24 employees were retrenched. That apart, remaining 64 employees in Sengurichi and 53 in Thirumandurai are still working with the petitioner and the 14th respondent.

  1. However, as against the retrenchment of this 26 + 24 employees and also for certain other issues, there has been some grievances for the employees at these two Toll Plazas in the recent past and the issue seems to have been referred to the Labour Commissioner for conciliation where it seems that, after conciliation, the Labour Commissioner has made a failure report, at that juncture, the retrenched employees started some agitation against the petitioner and the 14th
  2. In this context, it is the grievance of the petitioner and the 14th respondent that, the agitating employees are not espoused their cause by making the peaceful agitations but they started disturbing the Toll Plazas activities by preventing the other employees to serve and they have also indulged in closing certain office rooms.
  3. In order to prevent these agitating employees from disturbing theregular activities at the Toll Plazas, the petitioner had moved this writ petition, where, a learned Judge of this Court by order dated 04.10.2022 has passed the following interim order:

“8. Considering the facts that the toll operations have been restored in both Toll Plazas, the official respondents, particularly, the third to eighth respondents are directed to maintain status quo as on date. The demonstration, if any, by the employees whose interest is represented by the twelfth and thirteenth respondents, may be away from the Toll Plazas without disruption of vehicles in Toll Plazas. It is made clear that the demonstration, if any, by the employees may be permitted by the authorities by ensuring that there is no undue incidents in the Highways and lane movement of vehicles.

  1. The petitioner and the fourteenth respondent are also directed to maintain the status quo as far as the status of employees are concerned unless further orders are passed by the eleventh respondents conciliating the industrial dispute between the employees whose interest is represented by the twelfth and thirteenth respondents and the fourteenth respondent.
  2. Notice is ordered on the eleventh, fourteenth and fifteenth respondents through Court returnable by

10.10.2022. Private Notice is also permitted.

  1. Post this case on 10.10.2022 for filing counter affidavit and further orders in the regular sitting of the Court.”
  1. Only at this stage the writ petition has again come up for hearing today.
  2. Inthu Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned counsel appearing for 14th and 15th respondents have submitted that, despite the interim order passed by this Court as stated supra, continuous violation of the employees still noticed and on every day, at every hour they are disturbing the activities of the Toll Plazas in both places and in this regard even though some complaint has been given to the police authority who have registered FIR, the position has not improved, therefore in order to make the permanent solution to restrain the employees from interfering with the running of the Toll Plazas in a peaceful and lawful manner, some further orders to be passed, they contended.

  1. However, Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for theworkers/employees on instruction would submit that, the allegations made by the petitioner against the employees are baseless as these employees are peacefully agitating by espousing their cause to get re-employed and also for other issues, nearer to the respective Toll Plazas and in this process, none of the employees have disturbed the smooth functioning of the Toll Plazas.
  2. Insofar as the allegations made by the petitioner side that some of the office rooms have been locked by these agitating employees are concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the employees stoutly denied the same and claimed that the employees have never indulged in any such activities.
  3. On the other hand, Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State on instruction would submit that, pursuant to the orders given by this Court, even otherwise in order to maintain the law and order, necessary police force has been posted in both the Toll Plazas and police force have been monitoring the situation round the clock. However, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that, deploying more and more police people for maintaining the smooth running of the Toll Plazas for the sake of the public as well as the concessionaire is concerned, even though the maintaining of law and order is the prime job of the police for which necessary police force can be deployed, for the purpose of giving protection to the petitioner concessionaire and their employees or their staff are concerned, if more and more police personnel are to be pressed into service, the concessionaire may reimburse the expenses to be incurred in this regard and therefore they may be asked to pay the amount as fixed by the respondents in any other like case.
  4. In this context, the learned Special Government Pleader would further contend that, there is a Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.139 Home (Pol-VIII) Department dated 04.03.2019 under which the

necessary charge can be paid by the concessionaire.

  1. I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
  2. Since there are allegations and counter allegations made by the

parties against each other and the learned Special Government Pleader also would submit that, insofar as the law and order is concerned, which is being maintained properly and no untoward incident is permitted to take place and regards to his further submission that, under the G.O. referred to above, the charge that is incurred for deploying round the clock police force in considerable number in the two Toll Plazas have to be compensated for which the fee fixed under the G.O. has to be paid by the concessionaire, this Court, in order to ascertain the real position which is prevailing in the two Toll Plazas as of now, wants to pass the following interim order:

  • That there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent i.e. Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi District and the 4th respondent i.e. Superintendent of Police, Perambalur District to provide adequate police security round the clock in both Toll Plazas and in respect of which to maintain the law and order what is the minimum force is required can be deployed by these two respondents and insofar as the additional force is concerned, to have overall supervision and vigil over the two Toll Plazas in order to protect the concessionaire and their employees what is the force required to be calculated and be deployed for whom the fees by way of charges under the G.O. referred to above can be sought, for which, charges shall be paid in advance for a period of two weeks by the concessionaire.
  • That apart, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to make arrangements to install video cameras from various potential angles with the help of the police people to monitor the on going activities in the two Toll Plazas including the agitating employees who are claiming that they are agitating nearer to the Toll Plazas but not in a far away place.
  • The video footages being recorded in these two Toll Plazas, by the video cameras to be installed at the cost of the concessionaire i.e. the petitioner, shall be frequently monitored by the police people and based on such recording if they find any violation is taken place by any one including the employees who have been retrenched or any third party and that will tend to spoil the law and order situation in that locality, what are the action the police department wants to take against them can be taken.
  • But at the same time, if the employees are conducting only the peaceful agitation without disturbing the regular activities of the Toll Plazas, their agitation need not be curbed and adequate protection shall be given to them also. It is made clear that, insofar as the smooth vehicular traffic in both directions in the Toll Plazas are concerned, that shall not be hindered by any party including the agitating members at any circumstances and that shall be ensured by the police people.
  • In this regard, if any specific instance is noticed by the concessionaire or their men, that can be brought to the notice of the police people posted in that locality and if there is no action taken then and there by the police, that can also be brought to the notice of the respondents 3 and 4 for taking appropriate action in this regard.
  • The aforestated arrangements shall continue for a period of two weeks and at the end of the two weeks’ period both the police department as well as the concessionaire shall file separate status report as to the workability of this arrangement before this Court, based on which further course of action in this matter can be decided.
  • The charge for a period of two weeks to be payable by the concessionaire shall be immediately quantified and intimated by the respondents 3 and 4

respectively to the concessionaire within 24 hours from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, that amount should be deposited in the account concerned of the respondents 3 and 4. On receipt of the charge from the concessionaire, full cooperation shall be given by the police people for installation of the cameras as indicated above and thereafter only the concessionaire or their men can open any closed office premises or toll way.

  1. For the aforesaid compliance and report, post the matter on 27.10.2022.

 13.10.2022

Note : Issue order copy on 14.10.2022

Sgl

  1. SURESH KUMAR, J.

Sgl

W.P.No.26989  of 2022 and WMP.No.26205 of 2022

13.10.2022

You may also like...