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 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22639 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. J.ABDUL KADER, S/O. JAILABDEEN, AGED 46 YEARS, PEZHUNKARA, PALLIPURAM, PALAKKAD. 2. S.MOHAMMED RAFI, S/O. SULAIMAN, AGED 42 YEARS, MANNILVEEDU, KURISSAMKULAM, PIRAYIRI P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SRI RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. 4. THE KERALA HEAD-LOAD WORKERS UNION (INTUC), REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. 5. THE KERALA HEAD-LOAD WORKERS UNION (BMS), REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. 6. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION (STU), REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. 7. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PALAKKAD-678 001. 8. THE DISTRICT SECRETARY, THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD-678 001. 9. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB FOR R7 & R8 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. HANIL KUMAR FOR R1TO R3 & R9 SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R4,5 & 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER'S EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 22-6-11 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A) TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE POOL LEADERS OF POOL NO. 10B (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 22639 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. On considering the pleadings raised by the parties and the submissions addressed by Sri. Koshy George, standing counsel for respondents 7 and 8 who submitted that the petitioners are registered workers who have been alloted to the pool in question, we passed a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate and effective police protection to the petitioners in performing the works of loading and unloading materials based on Exts.P1 and P2 in Pool No. 10B coming under the 7th and 8th respondents along with other workers who are also alloted to the above pool. Today when this writ petition came up for hearing we enquired of Mr.P.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents as to whether there can be any objection to the continuance of the above interim order. Mr. WP(C). 22639/11 -2- Ramakrishnan submitted that the petitioners are not coming to do the work and hence the continuance of the interim order will not deliver goods. We enquired of the learned Govt. Pleader as to whether any law and order situation prevails in the area on account of the dispute. The answer of the learned Govt. Pleader was in the negative. Since it is not disputed that the petitioners are registered workers who have been alloted to the pool in question we do not find any reason as to why the interim order issued by us on 24-8- 2011 should not be continued. We confirm the interim order and respondents 1 to 3 are directed to give adequate and effective police protection to petitioners in performing the works of loading and unloading materials based on Exts. P1 and P2 in Pool No. 10B coming under the 7th and 8th respondents along with other workers who are also alloted to the above pool. If there is any obstruction by anybody to the petitioners carrying out the works, the respondents 1 to WP(C). 22639/11 -3- 3 will do the needful to ensure that the petitioners are able to carry out the work peacefully. At any rate, the respondents 1 to 3 will see that the dispute does not give rise to any law and order situation or breach of peace. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-