Paragon Polymer Products Pvt. Ltd., v. The Commissioner Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR and WPMP Crl.No.122 of 2026 Paragon Polymer Products Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr.G.Ravikumar, Unit-II, Survey No. 125/3A, Door No. 7/8, Salem-Attur Main Road, Karumapuram Village, Karipatti, Valappadi Taluk, Salem 636 106.
..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Commissioner of Police Salem City, Sankari Main Rd, Linemedu, Gugai, Salem- 636 006.
2. The Inspector of Police Karipatti police Station, Salem Rd, Karipatti, Salem 636 106.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) Integrated Labour Offices Building, Korimedu, Salem 636 008.
4. Salem District Paragon Labour Union, Represented by its Office Bearers, No. 39-E1, V.P.Sithan Ninaivagam, V.P.C.Street, Cinemanagar, Salem -9.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The writ petition criminal filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide necessary protection for ingress and egress of vehicles, staff and other workmen from the petitioner's premises and to consequently forbear the 4th respondent, suspended/dismissed workmen, members, agents, servants, subordinates or any other person acting on behalf of the 4th respondent, from carrying out illegal protest in any form within a radius of 500 meters from the petitioner's premises i.e., Unit-II, Survey No. 125/3A, Door No. 7/8, Salem-Attur Main Road, Karumapuram Village, Karipatti , Valappadi Taluk, Salem -636 106, based on the representation dated 15.02.2026 given by the petitioner and thereby render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
MS. GOPIKA NAMBIAR FOR MR.R.SANJAY For Respondent(s):
Mr. LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 AND R2
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition criminal seeking direction to the first and second respondents to provide necessary protection for ingress and egress of vehicles, staff and other workmen from the petitioner's premises and to forbear the 4th respondent from carrying out illegal protest in any form within a radius of 500 meters from the petitioner's premises.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner company was founded in the 1975 and it is engaged in the business of manufacturing, retail and export of footwear. The petitioner company over the past 50 years has earned a good reputation among the consumers and it is one of the leading footwear manufacturers in the country. The company owns several manufacturing units and three units are situated in Salem. The manufacturing unit at Salem has over 378 workmen, consisting of both permanent and contractual workmen. There are two registered trade unions in the petitioner factory namely Paragon Rubber Factory Labour Development affiliated with the Labour Progressive Federation (LPF) which is the majority trade union.
The other trade union the 4th respondent namely Salem District Paragon Labour Union affiliated with the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU). Out of 378 workmen, women workers constitute 50% of the work force and the petitioner company employs women in order to promote empowerment of women. 3.It is further submitted that in the year 2021, the permanent workmen issued a charter of demands before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Salem and after several rounds of discussions, settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was arrived at between the petitioner and the majority trade union on 04.10.2021.
force for a period of 4 years. The settlement dated 04.10.2021 expired, fresh settlement talks and negotiations were initiated and the same is presently pending consideration before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Salem. On 13.02,2026, one Rajesh, Supervisor, who was in charge for allocation of man power to the respective departments allotted work for the workmen. Barath, a workman defied the orders of Supervisor and informed that they will not work and engaged in a verbal spat with the supervisor and also issued death threats. This issue was escalated to the PVC section in charge Mr.S.Praveen Kumar and in charge held talks with the erring workmen. But the workmen still went onto continue threats and refused to work entire day, which seriously affected the production. 4.Further, it is submitted that on 14.02.
2026, considering the verbal spat and death threats, and in order to subside the issues, one Parthiban was allotted work in the shoe section. However, the said Parthiban refused to work. Consequently, the workmen engaged in a verbal spat with the Supervisor. Based on the complaint lodged, 13 workmen affiliated with the 4th respondent were placed under suspension on 16.02.2026 in violation of Section 20 of the standing orders of the petitioner. The workmen were squatting inside the factory premises, not allowing any production work and abusing the Supervisors, Managers and others. Despite a meeting arranged with the HR Manager, no solution could be arrived.
the General Manager lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Karipatty Police Station, Salem on 15.02.2026 seeking Police protection for the men and material and also for free ingress and egress. On 16.02.2026, there was a protest by the workmen before the 4th respondent. Though there was presence of policemen, it was not adequate and had no deterring effect of the workmen. Hence filed this petition.
5.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the decisions of this Court in W.P.No.20577 of 2021 in The Management Sanmina SCI India Private Limited Vs. The Inspector of Police, C-5 Oragadam Police Station, Kanchipuram District and two others and in W.P.No.702 of 2022 in the M/s.Thermal Systems and Engineering, Rep.by its Managing Partner - Preetham Kumar.S Vs. The Inspector of Police, T2Ambattur Estate Police Station, Chennai and another. 6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly objected the petitioner's contention and submitted that the dispute between the petitioner company and its workmen, the 4th respondent and other workmen, is an internal matter. In case of any law and order issue, the police would be able to give adequate protection and ensure that law and order is maintained. As per the incident on 16.02.2026, after receiving the complaint from the petitioner, sufficient policemen were posted near the gate of the petitioner's factory. The
presence of the policemen ensured that the production activity in the factory continued. A few of the protestors raised slogans and thereafter, left peacefully. As on date, there is no complaint of any restriction caused by the 4th respondent in respect of the ingress and egress of the workmen and materials. As and when any complaint received showing apprehension or a real threat, adequate police protection would be provided and necessary steps would be taken to ensure that the work in the petitioner's company is not affected. He further submitted that the relief now sought by the petitioner is merely based on apprehension and therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7.
Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the 4th respondent is one of the unions representing some of the workmen. Though the petitioner's contends that it is minor union, it is for the concerned unions to establish their status before the concerned authorities. Now , reconciliation proceedings are pending before the third respondent. In any event, no workman or any person can take the law into their hands and stall the production. No workman shall disturb the functioning of the petitioner's Company. This Court on an earlier occasion in W.P.No.702 of 2022 dated 20.01.
to ensure that there is free ingress and egress of men and materials. Further, the Police to ensure that no law and order problem is created near the factory premises and normalcy is maintained. The Labour Unions/Labour Federation to conduct the demonstration/strike, 200mts. away from the petitioner's factory premises. It is left open to the parties to agitate their respective rights before the appropriate forum/Court.'
As on date, no complaint has been received. If any complaint is received, the respondent police shall provide necessary police protection.
8. In the light of above orders passed by this Court in similar cases, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sms
To
1. The Commissioner of Police Salem City, Sankari Main Rd, Linemedu, Gugai, Salem- 636 006.
2. The Inspector of Police Karipatti police Station, Salem Rd, Karipatti, Salem 636 106.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) Integrated Labour Offices Building, Korimedu, Salem 636 008.
4. Salem District Paragon Labour Union Represented by its Office Bearers, No. 39-E1, V.P.Sithan Ninaivagam, V.P.C.Street, Cinemanagar, Salem -9.
5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
sms and WPMP Crl.No.122 of 2026 03-03-2026