AP High Court Orders Police Protection For Indian Cement Ltd Amid Labour Agitation, Says It Cannot Be 'Left To Bleed'

Taking serious note of the law and order situation prevailing in the factory premises of the petitioner, Justice Harinath N observed,

“Maintenance of law and order is the responsibility of the State. A manufacturing unit established in a remote area of the State, which has generated direct and indirect employment to several people, cannot be left in the lurch and bleed. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been paying taxes to the State and paying GST. Abrupt closure of the unit would result in a loss to the exchequer on account of non-payment of taxes.”

“As seen from the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, it is amply clear that a normal atmosphere is not prevailing near the petitioner's factory and an uneasy tension is in the air. This Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to take all necessary and required steps to maintain law and order and to ensure free ingress and egress of men and material. Adequate and effective police protection is to be extended to the petitioner company to restart its activities.” the Court added.

Facts:

The petitioner had contractually engaged the services of a licensed labour contractor for packing and loading of cement bags.

It was the case of the petitioner that under the instigation of a local politician, the contract labour, who were employed and paid by their contractor, raised illegal demands of absorbing them on the rolls of the petitioner company. The petitioner posited that it had no agreement or arrangement with any individual labour who were employed by the contractor.

It was further submitted that from 20.04.2025, these contract workers had stalled cement packaging and loading operations. On 05.06.2025, approximately ten contract workers, accompanied by around 90 outsiders, attempted to forcibly breach the company's main gate. Despite informing the police, no action was taken. From that date onward, the group laid siege to the plant, preventing the entry and exit of employees and vehicles. While several contract workers expressed willingness to return to work, the brute force of the crowd at the gate effectively shut down the manufacturing facility. Lastly, it was submitted that the closure of the plant would lead to the State losing revenue in the form of non-payment of taxes. Thus, through the petition, the petitioner sought police protection for facilitating the ingress and egress into the factory premises for the employees.

On the other hand, the Government Pleader placed on record that the police had already provided security to the petitioner. When the petitioner approached the District Collector, the security was enhanced to two sub-inspectors with 20 police personnel, with the intent to avoid any untoward incident in the premises of the said plant. He contended that the petitioner was also advised to take necessary steps to intimate the concerned revenue, labour and industries department of the incident, who were competent to initiate appropriate action and facilitate negotiations with the contract laborers and local villagers.

Court's Findings:

Commenting on the gravity of the incident, the Court observed,

“…that a running factory had to be shut down on account of agitation by the contract labour is alarming. The submission that the lives of about 400 employees and the future of their children is at stake is also a matter of grave concern. The consequences of declaring the lockout in the event of the respondents failing to contain the agitating mob and enabling the free ingress and egress into the factory premises are unimaginable.”

Regarding the issue of agitating laborers, the Court noted that while force was deployed, there was no respite from the onslaught of the agitators. The Court added that the agitating workmen were definitely instigated by some force behind them, which resulted in the closure of a running unit.

In this regard, the Court held,

“The issue of demands raised by the agitating contract labour would have to be raised before the Labour Court, which has jurisdiction over the petitioner factory. The contract labour can approach the Labour Court and raise all their demands. The labour court would be the appropriate forum for redressing the grievances of the labour in a legal manner. The police, instead of taking appropriate action, have simply washed off their hands by suggesting that the petitioner to negotiate with the agitating workmen and meet their demands.”

Noting that the hostile atmosphere warranted interference, the Court directed the Director General of Police (Respondent 2), Superintendent of Police (Respondent 3) and Respondent 4, to provide effective police protection to the factory premises and further directed Respondent 3 to ensure that no law and order problem is created and normalcy is maintained.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 14515/2025

Case Title: The Indian Cement Limited v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Click Here To Read/Download Order