IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14675 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- 1. THE KANCO HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (AITUC), KANCO, ATHANI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY A.SHAMSUDEEN. 2. THE KAMCO CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (INTUC), KAMCO, ATHANI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SABORE.C.V. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI. MANU GOVIND RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGAMANAD. 2. THE KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD. (KAMCO), ATHANI-683 585, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE NEDUMBASSERY MEGHALA GENERAL WORKER'S UNION (CITU), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.C.A.SIVAN, NEDUMBASSERY-683 585. G.P. SHRI. T K VIPINDAS FOR R1 ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 ADV. ANOOP ELIAS FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 26.11.07 IN W.P.C.32729/07. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.18.12.07 IN WPC.32729/07. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.5.5.10 FROM THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3A : TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DT.5.5.2010 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR EXT.P3 COMPLAINT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEX.A : TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DATED 18.4.2000 SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH THE WRIT PETITIONS. ANNEX.B : TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DATED 21.10.2002 ENTERED BETWEEN 2ND RESPONDENT AND OUTSIDE CASUAL WORKERS UNION. ANNEX.C: TRUE COPY OF TRIPARTITE SETTLEMENT DATED 31.1.2007 WITH INTUC AND AITUC UNION OF THE CASUAL & HEADLOAD WORKERS. ANNEX.D: TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DATED 14.8.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO 2ND RESPONDENT FOR REVISION OF WAGES. ANNEX.E: TRUE COPY OF CHARTER OF DEMANDS DATED 14.9.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT FOR REVISION OF WAGES. ANNEX.F: TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DATED 2.12.2009 WITH THE UNIONS. ANNEX.G: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.9.2009 GIVEN BY KAMCO CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL WORKER'S UNIION (INTUC) TO 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEX.H: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.11.2009 GIVEN BY KAMCO HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKER'S UNION (AITUC) TO 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEX.I: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 9.4.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE SI OF POLICE. EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPANY AND KUDUMBASREE COMMUNITY. EXT.R3(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPANY FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE CDS DT.3.2.2009. EXT.R3(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER DATED 10.11.2008. K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 14675 of 2010 H - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioners are workers' unions. The third respondent is also a union of workers. The prayer of the petitioners is to compel the first respondent to provide effective police protection to the members of the unions from the third respondent and its sympathisers, to work in the second respondent company. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioners is as follows. The petitioners are members of the unions, who are casual workers in the company, which is owned by the Government of Kerala. The third respondent has no union inside the company and they W.P.(C).No. 14675 of 2010 2 are demanding work and creating law and order problems. The members of the petitioners union are obstructed by the third respondent. The second respondent requested the first respondent twice to afford police protection. It is stated that they were attacked and the first respondent had filed an F.I.R. also. 3. A statement was filed by the second respondent, wherein it is inter alia, stated as follows. It is their case that the members of the third respondent union have never been engaged for casual works in the company. It is further stated that any kind of obstruction to the working of the casual labours employed by the company would result in chaotic situation in the premises due to stoppage of toilet cleaning, cutting of grass, waste removal etc. 4. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the third respondent producing Exts.R3(a) to R3(c). It is their case that their union neither W.P.(C).No. 14675 of 2010 3 obstructed the work inside the company nor trespassed into its premises. The second respondent under political pressure of the petitioner unions, accommodated nine members from each unions, thus engaged 18 workers for the casual work before the year 2007. Among those 18, four of them left their job for ever. The second respondent company is in a very difficult situation to accommodate and engage the remaining 14 workers on a regular basis. The petitioner unions again forced the second respondent to engage 20 more workers as casual workers. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the third respondent would categorically submit that the third respondent has not obstructed the workers and they will not obstruct the work being carried out by the W.P.(C).No. 14675 of 2010 4 members of the petitioners unions in the second respondent company. We record the said submission. We also make it clear that it is open to the third respondent to approach the second respondent and seek work from them. 7. Subject to the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm