IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 8633 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- IBRAHIM KUTTY,S/O.VAVA KUNJU, AGED 64 YEARS,PAYATTUVIALPUTHEN VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA CHERRY,VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KOLLAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KOLLAM EAST. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION. 4. ASST.LABOUR OFFICER,CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 5. HARIKUMAR,S/O.SADASIVAN,LEKSHMI NAGAR, HOUSE NO.52,VELIYIL KULANGARA,THEKKEVILA.P.O, KOLLAM. 6. T.VENUGOPAL,GENERAL SECRETARY,QUILON DISTRICT MOTOR AND MECHANICAL WORKERS UNION, CITU BHAVAN,KOLLAM-13. G.P. , SHR T K VIPINDAS FOR R1 TO R4 ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R5 SRI.LEO GEORGE FOR R5 SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR FOR R5 SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TH COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE REGISTERED OWNER DT.21.6.2008. EXT.P2 : THE COPY OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS AND THE PERMIT OF THE BUS BEARING NO.KL2 S 9428. EXT.P3 : THE COPY OF REGISTRATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 DATED 13.3.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R6(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE PASS BOOK ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY KOLLAM DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD DATED NIL. EXT.R6(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE FIFTH RESPONDENT BY THE KOLLAM DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD DTED.26.8.2008. EXT.R6(c): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT UNION TO THE PETITITIONER DT. 19.10.2009. EXT.R6(d): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUE DBY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER KOLLAM DT.9.11.09. // TRUE COPY// K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 8633 of 2010 D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection for the private bus service conducted by the petitioner using bus bearing Reg.No. KL2/S 9428 plying on the route Asramam - Kummalloor without being obstructed by any manner by respondents 5 and 6 or any other persons. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is the owner of a private bus. He purchased it from one Elliyas Kutty, the previous registered owner. The bus was transferred without any permanent workers. The 5th respondent was engaged as driver on daily wages. Due to his quarrelsome character and misbehaviour towards co-workers and due to rash W.P.(C).No. 8633 of 2010 2 and negligent driving, the petitioner stopped engaging him as driver. With the help of the 6th respondent he raised disputes before the Labour Officer. The petitioner is co-operating with the conciliation proceedings. It i stated that no action is taken by the police, though respondents 5 and 6 obstructed the services of the bus. 3. A counter affidavit was filed by respondents 5 and 6, to which a reply affidavit was also filed. 4. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the party respondents and the learned Government Pleader. 5. Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submits that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to raise the allegations, as he is not the registered owner. It is further contended that it is an unfair labour practice and no relief should be granted. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice Ext.P1, under which the bus was purchased. He would submit that he is co-operating with the conciliation proceedings. W.P.(C).No. 8633 of 2010 3 7. We have already passed an interim order in this case. After hearing the parties, we are of the view that the interim order can be made absolute. 8. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of by making the interim order absolute and further directing, as a condition, that the petitioner shall co-operate with the conciliation proceedings. We further make it clear this this will be without prejudice to the right of the fifth respondent to pursue his lawful remedies before the authorities. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm