The Indian Cement Limited vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the State. It acknowledged the alarming situation of a running factory being shut down due to labour agitation, impacting employment and state revenue. The Court found that while police force was deployed, it had not provided sufficient respite to the petitioner. The Court noted that the issue of demands raised by contract labour should be addressed before the Labour Court. Citing precedents like Emirates Cements India (Private) Limited v. Sub Inspector of Police and The Management of SNY Auto tech Pvt. Ltd., the Court directed respondents 2 to 4 (police authorities) to take all necessary steps to maintain law and order and ensure free ingress and egress of men and materials. Adequate and effective police protection is to be extended to the petitioner company to restart its activities. The Court left it open for the agitating contract labour to approach the competent tribunal/court for redressing their grievances. The aspect of instigation by a local politician was not gone into due to lack of substantiating material.

Facts

The petitioner, The Indian Cement Limited, a cement manufacturing unit, is facing a work stoppage since April 20, 2025, due to agitating contract labourers demanding absorption into the company. The petitioner claims these labourers are employed and paid by a licensed contractor and that a local politician is instigating them. The situation escalated on June 5, 2025, with an attempted breach of the company gate and a subsequent siege preventing ingress and egress. The petitioner sought police protection, but felt it was inadequate. The respondents stated that police security had been deployed and advised the petitioner to involve the revenue, labour, and industries departments for negotiation. The petitioner's factory operations have been shut down, impacting employment and state revenue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents (State authorities) have discharged their constitutional duty to maintain law and order and ensure free ingress and egress for the petitioner's employees and materials, as required under the law, particularly concerning the obstruction caused by agitating contract labourers and outsiders? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that despite repeated complaints and the escalation of the situation, including an attempted breach of the gate and a siege of the plant, the police have not provided adequate and effective support. They argued that the closure of the running factory would lead to significant losses for the State in terms of tax revenue and would jeopardize the livelihoods of hundreds of employees. They sought police protection to resume operations. Respondents' arguments: The Government Pleader submitted that police security had been deployed, with personnel numbers increased after the petitioner approached the District Collector. They advised the petitioner to address the issue with the labour contractor and the concerned departments (revenue, labour, industries) for negotiation and resolution. They also suggested that the demands of the contract labour should be addressed by the petitioner company appropriately.