IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 284 of 2011(I) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- GERMAN MOTORS, 118 A, CHUNGAM JUNCTION, WEST IIILL, CALICUT - 5, (REPRESENTED BY ITS HR MANAGER, SURESH BABU) BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.M.RAMANYA GAYATHRI SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CIRCLE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, NADAKKAVU, CALICUT - 673011. 2. SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, NADAKKAVU, CALICUT - 673011. 3. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONR CALICUT-673011. 4. KOZHIKODE JILLA MOTORS AND ENGINEERING WORKER'S UNION, AFFILIATED TO CITU, 17/1598, POTHERI BUILDING, PAVAMANI ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 4. 5. O.V.SHIJU, OLIYATH HOUSE, KARUNTHODY PARAMBA, KUNDUPARAMBA, EDAKKAD, CALICUT-673005. 6. T.VENEESH WASH BOY, SERVICE DEPARTMENT, GERMAN MOTORS, 118A, CHUNGAM JUNCTION, WEST HILL, CALICUT -5. 7. VIPIN K.MATHEW, ASSISTANT TECHNICIAN, GERMAN MOTORS, 118A, CHUNGAM JUNCTION, WEST HILL CALICUT - 5. 8. K.FAHATH ALI, DRIVER, GERMAN MOTORS, 118A CHUNGAM JUNCTION, WEST HILL , CALICUT - 5. 9. ANIL KUMAR, ASSISTANT TECHNICIAN, GERMAN MOTORS, 118A, CHUNGAM JUNCTION WEST HILL, CALICUT - 5. ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM FOR R4&5 SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH FOR R4&5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 284 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE TOKEN STRIKE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE GIVENBY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION STATEMENT GIVEN BY A FEW LOYAL WORKERS TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R.5(1) : THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE WAGE SLIP DATED 31.10.2010 ISSUED TO VIPIN M.M., AN ASSISTANT TECHNICIAN, BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R.5(2) : THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE WAGE SLIP DATED 31.10.2010 ISSUED TO SAREESH R., YET ANOTHER ASSISTANT TECHNICIAN, BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R.5(3) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE WAGE SLIP DATED 31.10.2010 ISSUED TO VIPIN P MATHEW, ASST. TECHNICIAN, BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R.5(4) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE WAGE SLIP DATED 31.10.2010 ISSUED TO AKHIL P., BY THE PETITIONER EXT.R.5.(5) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE SALARY FOR THE SERVICE STAFF PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER. R. BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 284 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of January 2011 JUDGMENT Basant J., The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner for the peaceful running of the establishment, German Motors and to prevent obstructions by respondents 4 to 9. 2. According to the petitioner a substantial number of workmen in the establishment are willing to work. Respondents 4 to 9 are raising untenable objections and preventing loyal and willing workmen to work in the establishment. In these circumstances it is prayed that directions for police protection may be issued. W.P.(C) No. 284 of 2011 :2: 3. All the respondents have been served. The learned Government pleader appears for respondents 1 to 3. For respondents 4 and 5 a counsel entered appearance. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that the petitioner is guilty of non payment of minimum wages and initiating vindictive actions against employees and unions, which have demanded payment of minimum wages and other legal benefits to the employees. However, the learned counsel submits that respondents 4 and 5 are not obstructing and shall not obstruct the loyal and willing workmen who are appearing for the work. The work of the establishment shall not in any way be disrupted. But the workers of the establishment have a grievance that the minimum wages are not being paid and other benefits are being denied to the workmen. Proceedings before the Labour authorities have been initiated and it is the grievance of respondents 4 and 5 that the petitioner is not co- operating with the trade union of employees and the Labour Authorities to settle their disputes amicably. At any rate, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that there is no necessity for any orders in the form of interim or final directions, W.P.(C) No. 284 of 2011 :3: that the respondents shall not in any way obstruct the functioning of the petitioner establishment and that they shall not physically obstruct the willing and loyal workmen from working in the establishment. 4. The learned Government Pleader points out that when the matter came up for admission on 5.1.2011, this Court had issued interim direction to the following effect: “There shall be an interim direction to respondents 1 to 3 to give protection to the willing managerial staff and workmen to enter the premises of the petitioner without any obstruction. We make it clear that this direction shall not enable the personnel not held on the rolls of the petitioner to enter the establishment.” 5. The learned Government Pleader assures that there is no threat to the running of the establishment now. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 requests that the petitioner may be directed to appear for the conciliation proceedings before the Labour Authorities and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall take part in such conciliation proceedings. We W.P.(C) No. 284 of 2011 :4: record that submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner. 6. We are satisfied in these circumstances that the interim order dated 5.1.2011 can be made absolute and further proceedings can be discontinued. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed in part to the above extent. We make it clear that this order shall not in any way fetter the rights of the employees/Union to do peaceful demonstration without obstructing the work in the establishment. If the petitioner does not participate in conciliation proceedings by labour authorities, respondents 4 and 5 shall be at liberty to seek modification/ recall of this order. R.BASANT, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/