Madras High Court: In a habeas corpus petition filed directing the State to produce the detenues (workers at Samsung India) before this Court from its illegal custody and detention, the division bench of P.B. Balaji and G. Arul Murugan, JJ. said that no further orders are required in the habeas corpus petition since already necessary safeguards have been made and also the employees have been allowed to go on strike peacefully as set out in the orders, thus there is no illegal custody as projected by the petitioner.
The State submitted that there has been an agitation going on within the premises of the Samsung Company and in the said agitation, since there was a law and order issue and hence, FIR came to be registered on 08-10-2024 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 132, 121(1), 351(2) and 49 of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR has been registered against 36 workers, and they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, who refused to accept the remand and therefore the detenues have been set at liberty.
The State submitted that the detenues have not been under any illegal custody and that they were let off yesterday evening itself. The detenues submitted that though they are carrying on a peaceful agitation, however, the police intervened in the agitation being carried out.
The Court noted that the Company has preferred a writ petition, wherein the Single Judge has observed the labor union’s intention to hold a protest meeting. The union assured that the protest would take place 500 meters away from the factory premises and would not disrupt employee movement or production activities for those willing to work. Additionally, the Court directed both the Company and the union to engage with a conciliation officer to resolve their issues and reach a settlement promptly.
Thus, the Court said that since already necessary safeguards have been made and also, the employees have been allowed to go on strike peacefully as set out in the orders, thus there is no illegal custody as projected by the petitioner.
[Muthukumar v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 5565, decided on 09-10-2024]
