- (1.) The petitioner No.1, Shri Ganga Cold Storage Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the said Company), is a public limited Company and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner No.2 is one of the Directors of the said Company and the petitioner No.3 is its Secretary. They moved and obtained the Rule, in which the concerned application for further directions dated 31.5.79 and the prayer for renewal of appropriate interim orders, is being made, pursuant to the liberty as granted on 2.5.79, against the purported inaction of the police authorities to render to them necessary help and assistance, in due discharge of their duties and obligations under the relevant statute, even in spite of the applications made under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
(2.) On the pleadings, to which reference would be made hereafter, the main point for consideration in this case would be, whether after the statutory lapse of a proceeding under section 144 as mentioned above, a writ application, which was obtained during the currency of such proceeding and for the inaction of the police authorities, would be maintainable.
(3.) It has been alleged by the said Company that its employees started agitating in or about February 1979, over some of their purported demands, without duly submitting a charter of demand. It has been stated that on and from 6th March, 1979, some of the employees of the said Company started abusing the managerial staff and disobeying the orders and directions of the authorities concerned, which were duly given and announced. On such happening, it has been stated that on or about 7th March, 1979, a written complaint was lodged with the officer-in-charge, Chitpore Police Station, by the Manager of the said Company. It is the case of the said Company that for the protection of its properties inside the factory premises, which include amongst others plant, machineries and records, they, on 9th March 1979, had engaged some Security Guards. It is their case that there was interference with the discharge of the duties of these Security Guards by respondent Nos.5 to 14, their friends, associates and aids. In fact, the allegations, as mentioned hereinbefore, according to the said petitioners, were also directed against these persons. These respondents would hereafter be termed as employee respondents, for convenience.;