Varun Beverages LTD. vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 (likely the Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, based on the facts) to examine the applications/representations submitted by the petitioner and take immediate appropriate action in accordance with law to address the petitioner's grievances. This implies that the Court acknowledged the petitioner's need for assistance and directed the authorities to act. The reasoning is based on the State counsel's assurance that appropriate action would be taken and police protection would be provided if necessary. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the petition accordingly, without delving into the merits of the disruption itself, but ensuring the authorities would address the complaint. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court acted on the State's assurance.

Facts

The petitioner, Varun Beverages Ltd., operating a beverage factory in Mandideep, Raisen, Madhya Pradesh, lawfully retrenched 60 workmen on July 4, 2025, disbursing full and final dues amounting to Rs. 2,95,76,838/-. Following this, ex-employees and other individuals disrupted plant operations on July 23, 2025, by blocking entry/exit points, issuing threats, and preventing the dispatch of perishable goods. Despite a conciliation meeting on July 21, 2025, and subsequent requests for police protection to various authorities, including the SHO Mandideep, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Labour Commissioner, District Magistrate, and Superintendent of Police, Raisen, no action was taken. The petitioner sought police protection for safe movement of perishable goods, employee safety, and to prevent further disorder.

Key Issues

1. Whether the State authorities are obligated to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner company to ensure unhindered movement of its perishable finished goods and other material, and to safeguard its employees and property, in light of disruptions caused by retrenched workmen and anti-social elements? (Question of law and fact, concerning the State's duty to maintain law and order). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the State has a fundamental responsibility to maintain law and order and protect businesses operating within its jurisdiction. They relied on the judgment in The Indian Cement Limited Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and others, arguing that their situation was identical and required immediate police intervention for the safety of personnel, smooth operations, and the prevention of irreparable loss to perishable inventory. They emphasized that authorities had failed to act on their repeated requests. Revenue/State's arguments: The State counsel, on instructions, submitted that appropriate action would be taken on the petitioner's complaint and that police protection would be provided if required.