IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 8899 of 2011(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. MEENACHIL TALUK HEADLOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION MELUKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH UNIT REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT,JIMMY SKARIA,AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SKARIA,MATTATHIL HOIUSE,MELUKAVUMATTOM.P.O, ERATTUPETTA,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. T.J.GEORGE,AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.JOSEPH, THADAMALAYIL HOUSE,MELUKAVUMATTOM.P.O,ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,SECRETARY,MEENACHIL TALUK HEADLOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION,MELUKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH UNIT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN, SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SRI.DIPU JAMES. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,HOME DEPARTMENT,STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION,ERATTUPETTA, PIN-686 121. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MELUKAVU POLICE STATION,MELUKAVU,ERATTUPETTA,PIN-686 652. Kss ..2/- ..2... WPC.NO.8899/2011 J 5. THE HEADLOAD & GENERAL WORKER'S UNION (CITU),MELUKAVU UNIT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.S.RAJEEV,CPI(M)OFFICE,MELUKAVUMATTOM.P.O, ERATTUPETTA,PIN-686 652. 6. THE HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (INTUC),MELUKAVU UNIT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY JOY SKARIA,INTUC OFFICE,MELUKAVUMATTOM.P.O, ERATTUPETTA,PIN-686 652. 7. THE HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (AITUC),MELUKAVU UNIT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,K.P.REJI,AITUC OFFICE,MELUKAVUMATTOM.PO, ERATTUPETTA,PIN-686 652. 8. THE HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (KTUC),MELUKAVU UNIT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,GEORGE MATHEW,KTUC OFFICE,MELUKAVUMATTOM .PO,ERATTUPETTA,PIN-686 652. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R5 TO R8 BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SRI.DIPU.R., SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW, SRI.K.S.HARIDAS, SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.8899/2011 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF CERTIFICATE DTD. 16/02/2011. P2: COPY OF AGREEMENT DTD. 17/05/2008. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 04/02/2010 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 01/10/2010 PASSED BY THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 05/03/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R7(A): COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 13/11/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER PALA TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,KOTTAYAM. R7(B): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 4/02/2010 PASSED BY DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER KOTTAYAM UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS' ACT ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES. R7(C): COPY OF THE JOINT PETITION DTD. 30/01/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. R7(D): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 14/02/2010 FROM THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MELUKAVU UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.8899 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioners have come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 2, 3 and 4 - all police officials under the first respondent State, to afford protection to the petitioners and the members of the union to take up work in accordance with Exts.P3 and P4 order/judgment against the illegal obstruction that is raised by respondents 5 to 8. 2. According to the petitioners, they are a Trade Union and its Secretary. The President of the Union had resigned and joined another trade union. There were disputes about the right of the members of the petitioner trade union to take up loading and unloading work. The matter was taken up by the authorities concerned under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. The District Labour Officer, after the failure of the efforts to conciliate both by the Conciliation Officer and the District Labour Officer, WPC No.8899 of 2011 2 proceeded to pass an adjudicated order under Section 21(4). That order is Ext.P3. That order was challenged before the appellate authority. Under Section 21(6), the appellate authority has rejected the challenge as early as on 1.10.2010. In spite of Exts.P3 and P4 orders, the petitioners are not being permitted to take up the work. Respondents 5 to 8 are causing illegal obstructions. It is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Respondents 5 to 8 have entered appearance through a counsel. The learned counsel raises the only contention that Exts.P3 and P4 are now facing challenge before another Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.10623 of 2011. That Writ Petition has already been admitted. Admittedly, no interim orders have so far been passed. The learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8 attempts to canvass the proposition before this Court that Exts.P3 and P4 are not valid, just and legal. Those orders are incorrect, it is urged. 4. We are afraid that we cannot while invoking and exercising our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the WPC No.8899 of 2011 3 Constitution to consider the request of police protection collaterally entertain the challenge against Exts.P3 and P4 orders. The contention is only that the said orders are incorrect. The first authority under Section 21(4) and the appellate authority under Section 21(6) have taken a view in favour of the petitioners. Though the challenge against Ext.P3/P4 has been admitted in Writ Petition No.10623 of 2011, no interim directions have admittedly been issued by that Court. We are in these circumstances satisfied that at any rate pending disposal of the challenge, respondents 5 to 8 have no manner of right to cause obstruction to the petitioners and their members undertaking the work in accordance with Exts.P3 and P4. We are satisfied that the petitioners are entitled for an order of police protection. 5. We may hasten to observe that the order of police protection hereby granted shall be subject to interim orders, if any, and final orders passed in Writ Petition No.10623 of 2011. That aspect can be made crystal clear while issuing these directions for police protection. 6. In the result, a) This writ petition is allowed. WPC No.8899 of 2011 4 b) Respondents 2 to 4 are directed to afford adequate and sufficient protection for the petitioners and their members to undertake the work in accordance with Exts.P3 and P4 orders against any obstruction that may be raised by respondents 5 to 8. c) We make it clear that this direction for police protection shall be subject to interim orders, if any, and final orders to be rendered by the Bench concerned in Writ Petition No.10623 of 2011. 7. Needless to say that the option of respondents 5 to 8 to seek an expeditious disposal of the said writ petition shall remain unfettered. We expect the petitioners to co-operate in such early disposal. sd/- R.BASANT JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE WPC No.8899 of 2011 5 WPC No.8899 of 2011 6 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.8899 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th April, 2011 ORDER Basant, J. It is now submitted that Ext.P4 appellate order on the strength of which protection is claimed in this petition is the subject matter of challenge in WPC No.10623/20011 which has already been admitted, though interim order has not been issued. Call on 26.5.2011. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/