IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26521 of 2011(M) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PMS COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE & RESEARCH GOLDEN HILLS, VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 028, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN DR.P.S.THAHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005. 4. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATTAPPARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 028. svs ..........2/-.. ...2... WPC. NO.26521/2011 8. M/S.VITAL HOSPITALITY (P) LTD., 15/1962, GANAPATHY KOVIL ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR P.HARIPRASAD. 9. M/S.G4S FACILITY INDIA (P) LTD, TC 9/2041(1), OPP.ALAKAPURI AUDITORIUM, KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. 10. BINDHU.S., PADMAVILASAM, PONGUMMOODU, VATTAPPARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 028. 11. KUMARI SANTHI.S.K., KALLUVARAMBU THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, VENKODE.P.O., VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 028. 12. SUNAJA KUMARI.R.V., KUNNIL VEEDU, SEEMAMUKKU, VENKODE.P.O., VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 028. R1 TO R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER DINESH MATHEW MANJOORAN R-8 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R9 BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD R-10 BY ADV. SRI.BOBY MATHEW R11-12 BY ADVS. SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 26521/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 01/10/2003 EXECUTED BY AND BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 8TH RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P3(a):COPY OF THE INVOICE/SERVICE BILL NO.129 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P3(b):COPY OF THE INVOICE/SERVICE BILL NO.130 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF CERTIFICATE IN FORM 16A FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 ISSUED TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. P4(a):COPY OF CERTIFICATE IN FORM 16A FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 ISSUED TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. P4(b):COPY OF CERTIFICATE IN FORM 16A FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P6:COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 01/09/2011 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 9TH RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/09/2011 OF ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P7(a):COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 05/09/2011 OF VIJAYABANK, KESHAVADASPURAM, ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT. P7(b):COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 05/09/2011 OF VIJAYABANK, KESHAVADASPURAM, ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30/09/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 6TH RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30/09/2011 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. Svs ..........2/-.... ...2... WPC. NO.26521/2011 P9(a):COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/09/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P10: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 02/10/2011 TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT BH THE PETITIONER. P11: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).No.26521 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim ,J. The petitioner is a college imparting education in dental medicine. Petitioner is seeking police protection for smooth functioning of the college, hospital and hostel and protection to the employees engaged by the 9th respondent for doing 'house keeping' services and cleaning services in the premises against obstruction alleged to have been caused by respondents 8 & 10 to 12. The averments are to the effect that the hospitality and cleaning services in the college, hospital and hostel were entrusted to the 8th respondent company on contract basis, till 30.9.2011. Thereafter the work was entrusted to the 9th respondent company from 1.10.2011 onwards. But it is alleged that the 8th respondent and respondents 10 to 12 are causing obstructions to the employees of the 9th respondent in doing such works assigned and they are causing obstruction to the smooth functioning of the institutions. WP(C).26521/2011 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 11 and 12 submitted that they were employees of the petitioner's college from the year 2001 onwards. However, it is admitted that after the 8th respondent company took over the hospitality and cleaning works, they were employed only under 8th respondent. According to them, they were given employment in the college on the basis of an agreement arrived between the management and the neighbouring residents in the locality, as a solace to the problem faced in the locality due to depletion of the drinking water because of the bore wells dug by the management. It is further stated that, with respect to denial of employment and raising claim for regularisation under the Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, the respondents have already approached the Labour Commissioner and conciliation proceedings are pending. It is alleged that the management of the petitioner is not co-operating in the said proceedings. 3. The 8th respondent company represented through counsel submitted that their contract period is over and they have no interest in the issue. The 10th respondent through her counsel submitted that she was employed under the 8th WP(C).26521/2011 3 respondent and since the contract had already been terminated, she is not raising any sort of claim or creating any obstruction. Counsel for the 9th respondent submitted that there is obstruction caused from the side of respondents 11 and 12 and that the company could not pursue the hospitality and cleaning services on the basis of the contract entered. 4. Learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the instructions received from the 6th respondent, submitted that there exists a dispute with respect to the assignment of the contract and some of the employees were not willing to do the work under the agency with whom such works are now assigned. It is stated that their claim is to the effect that they were directly appointed by the petitioner and that they are entitled for continuance in service. However it is mentioned that the police is keeping vigil and affording protection for smooth functioning of the college, hospital and hostel. Effective police patrolling has been provided and law and order situation if any arises will be dealt with , is the submission. 5. From the facts and circumstances narrated above and on the basis of the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we notice WP(C).26521/2011 4 that there exists some dispute between the petitioner and respondents 11 and 12 regarding their employment. However, we notice that the said issue is now pending adjudication before the competent labour authority. Any decision taken by the competent authority will be binding on the parties. But even assuming that there is denial of employment, the respondents 11 and 12 have no manner of right to take law into their own hands and to create obstruction to the functioning of the college, hostel and hospital. Learned counsel respondents 11 and 12 submits that they have no intention to create any such physical obstruction. 6. Therefore we dispose of the writ petition directing respondents 6 and 7 to keep vigil over the situation and to take effective steps, if any complaint is received regarding physical obstruction or any hindrance caused in any manner to the smooth functioning of the college, hostel and hospital. 7. It is directed that the petitioner shall co-operate with the proceedings initiated by the competent labour authorities in order to facilitate an amicable solution of the labour dispute to the possible extent. Needless to say that if there is no co- WP(C).26521/2011 5 operation from the side of the petitioner the competent labour authority will be free to proceed with further steps in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant statute. It is made clear that the direction issued for police protection will not cause any prejudice to the rights or claims of respondents 11 and 12 if any, in the labour dispute pending adjudication before the authorities concerned. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).26521/2011 6