Samsung India Workers Strike: Madras HC Closes Plea Against Arrest Of Workers After State Informs That They Have Been Let Off

The bench of Justice PB Balaji and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the plea after noting the submissions of the Additional Public Prosecutor who informed the court that the arrested persons had already been let off on October 8^th after the Sriperumbudur Judicial Magistrate refused to accept the remand.

The Samsung India workers have been striking at the company's unit in Sriperumbudur demanding better pay, improved work hours, and recognition of their trade union. On Tuesday, 7 workers were arrested by the state police after an altercation. The police also dismantled the tent where the protestors had gathered.

The state informed the court that the arrests were made in light of a law and order situation and an FIR had been registered for offenses under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 132, 121(1), 351(2) and 49 of the BNS. The APP informed the court that 8 persons were arrested at 5 pm on October 8 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur who refused to accept the remand and therefore, they had been set at liberty. He informed that the alleged detenus had appeared before the Judicial Magistrate to execute the sureties.

Noting the submission of the APP that there was no illegal custody and that the persons had already been set at liberty, the court noted that no further orders were required in the habeas corpus plea. The court also noted that the necessary safeguards had already been put in place in an earlier order of the High Court laying down certain directions to be considered at the time of the strike.

The petition was filed by Muthukumar, the District Secretary of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) Kancheepuram. Muthukumar, in his petition, stated that the workers were holding peaceful protests for registering their union and no violence had taken place to date nor any disturbance or nuisance was caused to the management and public.

Muthukumar argued that the police had arrested the protestors illegally and a false case was registered against them as they were forcibly taken to the police station. He submitted that the protestors were arrested only to suppress the peaceful agitation and the act of the police was not in accordance with law as they violated the procedure established by law.

When the matter was taken up, Senior Advocate NGR Prasad, appearing for the petitioner contended that the protests were being carried out peacefully which was not barred in a democratic country like India. He pointed out that to date, no case had been registered against the protestors for any damage. He thus reiterated that the police were trying to scuttle the voice of the protestors by illegally arresting them and seeking to set them at liberty.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.GR.Prasad for Mr.R.Thirumoorthy

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A.Damodharan Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 382

Case Title: Muthukumar v State and Others

Case No: H.C.P.No.2591 of 2024