IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2881 of 2010(I) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SHAMEER, S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, AGED 31 YEARS, CHALUKANDATHIL HOUSE, THAYIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUHAMMA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THE SECRETARY, THANNEERMUKKAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THANNEERMUKKAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. THE SECRETARY, C.I.T.U., THANNEERMUKKAM AREA COMMITTEE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. THE SECRETARY, AITUC, THANNEERMUKKAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 7. THE SECRETARY, INTUC, THANNEERMUKKAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. W.P.(C).NO.2881 OF 2010 8. THE SECRETARY, B.M.S., THANNEERMUKKAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R4 SRI.S.VINODKUMAR FOR R4 SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. FOR R4 SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN FOR R5 TO 8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO. 2881 OF 2010 I PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF TENDER NOTICE DATED 5.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 1.1.2010. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 7.1.2010 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.1.2010 WUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE FIRST RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS; NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 2881 OF 2010 I --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th February, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “A. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford proper and adequate police protection to the life and properties of the petitioner including JCB, Hitachi and Lorries and other mechanical devices of the petitioner and its drivers and employees for loading sand auctioned by the petitioner from the fourth respondent and stored in the premises of Inland Water Authority, Thanneermukkam from the threat of respondent 5 to 8 Trade Unions and its members and agents and representatives. B. Declare that respondents 5 to 8 and their members have no right or authority to demand WPC.NO.2881 OF 2010 I 2 “Nokku Coolie” for loading snd through mechanical devices by the petitioner.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a contractor. He was the highest bidder in an auction conducted by the fourth respondent. The bid amount is more than Rs.49 Lakhs. Petitioner deposited more than Rs.23 Lakhs after the auction. It is stated that the petitioner has further deposited more than Rs.24 Lakhs covered by Ext.P4 receipt. According to the petitioner, petitioner is given fifteen days to remove the entire sand stocked. It is stated that there are almost 3255 Cubic Metres of sand which is equivalent to 1300 mini lorry loads. Petitioner arranged JCB and Hitachi for loading the sand by using these mechanical devices. It is stated that they were obstructed. 3. Petitioner filed Ext.P5. His complaint is against respondents 5 to 8 and their members preventing him from loading sand with the help of mechanical devices. It is stated that this Court has taken the view that members of any trade union do not have any right to demand “Nokku Cooli”. A WPC.NO.2881 OF 2010 I 3 Counter Affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 5 to 8. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: “3. Altogether 200 workers are working in the site, who are the members of respondents 5 to 8 unions. In earlier occasions also, the members of respondents 5 to 8 unions removed the sand within a short span of time as directed by the earlier bidders. There was dispute regarding the wages of the workers between the present petitioner and respondents 5 to 8. There was a mediation talk between the petitioner and respondents 5 to 8 in respect of the wages on 26.1.2010. In that meeting, as the parties could not arrive at a consensus, they decided to convene the meeting again. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed the above writ petition before this Honourable Court suppressing material facts. On 29.1.2010, respondents 5 to 8 submitted petitions before the District Labour officer, Alappuzha praying to allow the members of respondents 5 to 8 to do the said work.” It is further stated that the intention of the petitioner is to deny job opportunities of more than 200 workers working in the said WPC.NO.2881 OF 2010 I 4 site. Condition No.2 in Ext.P1 has been referred to. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 4th respondent Grama Panchayat and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 5 to 8 as also the learned Government Pleader. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the facts. Learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8 would submit that Condition No.2 in Ext.P1 would show that the petitioner has understood that he will have to pay the loading and unloading charges and he would say that there are two hundred workers. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has to finish the work within fifteen days and he intends to use mechanical devices and if mechanical devices are not used and manual work is done, he will do the loading work through the members of respondents 5 to 8. 6. If the petitioner employs mechanical devices, we do not see how the workers affiliated to respondents 5 to 8 can obstruct the petitioner. The workers belonging to respondents 5 to 8 WPC.NO.2881 OF 2010 I 5 have no right to demand “Nokku Coolie”. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: If the petitioner does the loading work using mechanical devices, respondents 1 to 3 will afford adequate and sufficient police protection for doing the same including for the JCB and Hitachi, against any obstruction on the part of the members belonging to respondents 5 to 8. If the petitioner is doing the work by manual method, he will necessarily abide by the law and provide employment through the registered headload workers of the area and belonging to respondents 5 to 8. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge