AP High Court Orders Police Protection for India Cement Limited

Background

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in The Indian Cement Limited vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (W.P. No. 14515 of 2025). The case arose from disturbances at the petitioner’s cement manufacturing plant in Yerraguntla, Kadapa District, operated by Indian Cement Limited, a subsidiary of UltraTech Cements.

Brief Facts

• The company engaged a licensed labour contractor for packing and loading cement bags under a tonnage-based payment system.
• From 20.04.2025, contract labourers, allegedly instigated by a local politician, began agitating for absorption into the company’s rolls.
• By 05.06.2025, nearly 100 individuals (10 contract workers and 90 outsiders) obstructed the plant gates, leading to suspension of operations.
• Despite repeated complaints to the local police, only nominal security was provided, forcing the company to approach the High Court.

Petitioner’s Contentions

• The contract labour had no direct employment relationship with the company.
• Their demands for absorption were unlawful and disruptive.
• A mob attempted to break open the gates, creating fear among 400 employees.
• Insufficient police protection led to economic loss, closure, and employee distress.

Respondent’s Contentions

• Initial deployment of one sub-inspector with 12 personnel was made on 06.06.2025.
• Later, two sub-inspectors and 20 personnel were deployed from 12.06.2025.
• The respondents argued that the petitioner should engage in dialogue with the agitating workers, who were local villagers with genuine concerns.

Court’s Observations

• The Court acknowledged continuous obstruction of ingress and egress, resulting in plant shutdown.
• It emphasized that maintenance of law and order is the responsibility of the State.
• The Court noted that the petitioner had no privity of contract with the agitating workers, as they were engaged through an independent contractor.
• Authorities were criticised for inaction, as police merely suggested negotiation instead of ensuring protection.
• The Court clarified that labour grievances must be raised before the Labour Court, not through unlawful obstruction.
• It observed possible political instigation behind the agitation.
• Reliance was placed on precedents such as Emirates Cements India (P) Ltd. v. Sub Inspector of Police and SNY Autotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Inspector of Police, affirming the duty of police to provide effective protection.

Decision

• The Court directed respondents to provide effective police protection to the petitioner’s factory premises.
• It ensured free ingress and egress of men and materials, enabling resumption of operations.
• The agitating contract labourers were given liberty to approach the appropriate labour forum for redress of grievances.

Significance

This judgment underscores the constitutional obligation of the State to maintain law and order and protect industrial activity. It reinforces that while workers’ grievances deserve legal consideration, disruption of operations through unlawful means cannot be tolerated.