IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21923 of 2011(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. DR.GEORGE MATHEW,PERUMPATHCHIRA HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.PIN- 686 691. 2. THAMPY KURIAN,PULLATHU HOUSE, PERUNILAM,POONJAR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.RAJU JOSEPH, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE KUTTY MATHEW SRI.C.N.MIDHUN SRI.BABY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. K.K.TOMY, KARAKOMBAN HOUSE, KULATHIL,KUMBATHU MURI,MALAYINKEEZHIL, KOTHAMANGALAM PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 686 691. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R4 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.21923/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 02/05/2011 P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY ONE MRS.SHANTHA SIVAN DATED 31/01/2011. P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.32994/2006 DATED 08/01/2007. P4 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13/07/2011. P5 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21923 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The 1st petitioner is the owner of 13.8 acres of land comprised under various survey numbers, situated in Kothamangalam village. For the purpose of slaughter tapping, cutting and removal of the Rubber trees standing in the said property, the 1st petitioner had entered into an agreement with the 2nd petitioner, as per Ext.P1. Pursuant to the said agreement, the 2nd petitioner is conducting slaughter tapping. It is alleged that the 4th respondent herein alongwith certain other persons are trespassing into the property and is causing physical obstruction to the 2nd petitioner in proceeding with the work of slaughter tapping. According to the petitioners, they could not withstand the threat and violence apprehended from the side of the 4th respondent and his men. Inspite of 2 W.P.(C) No.21923 of 2011 approach made before respondents 2 and 3 in Exts.P4 and Ext.P5 complaints, no effective steps are taken. Hence this writ petition. 2. Heard ; Mr.Alexander Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. It is pointed out that the first petitioner alongwith his mother and brothers have approached this Court on an earlier occasion seeking police protection for conduct of tapping works in the estate and in the said writ petition (W.P.(C)No.3299 of 2006), the 4th respondent was implicated as 3rd respondent. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court through Ext.P3 judgment, affording police protection subject to condition that the petitioners shall attend the conciliation conferences in respect of the labour disputes pending. According to learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the first petitioner had failed in attending the conciliation conference and in cooperating with settlement of the dispute. Therefore, the contention of the 4th respondent is that, the petitioner is not entitled to seek an 3 W.P.(C) No.21923 of 2011 identical relief in this writ petition. 3. Sri.Raju Joseph, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on the other hand contended that pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, the 1st petitioner as well as his brothers have participated in the conciliation conference and the claims due to the labourers with respect to the estate covered under Ext.P1 agreement, was already settled payment. It is further submitted that no labour dispute persists at present with respect to the area of 13.8 acres covered by Ext.P1 agreement, which is owned by the 1st petitioner herein. 4. However, to a specific question pointed to the 4th respondent, Sri.Alexander Joseph conceded that the 4th respondent is neither a worker in the estate nor he had any direct connection with the activities of the estate. He also submitted that, the 4th respondent has not created any obstruction as alleged and that he has no intention to cause any obstruction against the petitioners continuing with the work of slaughter tapping. He also denied the 4 W.P.(C) No.21923 of 2011 statement of the petitioner that the labour dispute persisting with respect to the property covered under Ext.P1 is settled. On the other hand submission is that, he was a former office bearer of the union which represent the workers. 5. Even assuming that there exist any claim or dispute with respect to any benefits due to the former workers or regarding any denial of employment to them, the 4th respondent is not entitled to create any physical obstruction to the petitioners continuing with slaughter tapping. The former workers of the 1st petitioner or any union representing them, has got every right to pursue the dispute if any before the appropriate labour authorities or to raise any claim for benefits if any due. But we do not find any legal right conferred on any such person to create physical obstruction in the petitioners continuing with the slaughter tapping and loading works. 6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition directing the 3rd 5 W.P.(C) No.21923 of 2011 respondent to take effective steps if there is any physical obstruction caused and to afford protection for conduct of the activities of the petitioners in the property in question. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/