IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 27219 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.J & A FOUNDATIONS PVT.LTD., FOUNDATION ENGINEERS & PILING CONTRACTORS, 33/1344-C, KALASRISHTY JUNCTION, P.O.VENNALA, KOCHI - 682 028, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.JOSEPH V.J. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA. 3. THE ERNAKULAM JILLE KETTIDA NIRAMANA THOZHILALI UNION, (C.I.T.U) A.K.G.BHAVAN, M.O.ROAD, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION WORKERS' UNION (I.N.T.U.C), ALUVA. 5. K.K.N.T.U.C., BANK JUNCTION, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNIT PRESIDENT. 6. SWATHANTRA THOZHILALI UNION (STU) KUZHIVELIPPADY MEKHALA UNIT, KUZHIVELIPPADY, P.O.EDATHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. *ADDL. R7 TO R9 ARE IMPLEADED. 7. ERNAKULAM JILLA CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (A.I.T.U.C.) EDATHALA MEGHALA COMMITTEE, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY A.K.SYED MOHAMMED, ANJILIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KUZHIVELIPPADY, EDATHALA P.O. 8. INDIAN NATIONAL LABOUR CONGRESS(I.N.L.C.) EDATHALA MANDALAM COMMITTEE, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT A.A.ALIYAR, ANJILIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KUZHIVELIPPADY , V.K.C. P.O. 3. INDIAN NATIONAL LABOUR CONGRESS(S) EDATHALA MANDALAM COMMITTEE, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT P.M.ABDUL KADER, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, PANCHAYATH JUNCTION, KUZHIVELIPPADY, EDATHALA P.O. *ADDL. R7 TO R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 24.9.2008 IN IA. 12098/2008 ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM FOR R6, 7 , 9 SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R3 DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R5 SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R5 SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD FOR R5 SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) FOR R5 SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH FOR R4 SRI.T.D.SALIM FOR R4 SRI.C.S.YESUDAS FOR R4 SRI.PAUL C THOMAS FOR R4 SRI.C.N.GOPAKUMAR FOR R7-9 SRI.K.A.JIBIN JOSEPH FOR R7-9 SRI.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE FOR R7-9 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 21800 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.27219/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. NIL JUNE, 2008 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION OF PILING SPECIALISTS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNIONS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.08 TO 31.3.09. P2:- COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DT. 26.6.08 ISSUED BY M/S. CONFIDENT GROUP ENGAGING THE PETITIONER TO EXECUTE THE PILING WORK. P3:- COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DT. 27.3.08 ISSUED BY THE KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO M/S. CONFIDENT PROJECT INDIA LIMITED. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 4TH JUNE, 2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. NO.15580/08. P5:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT 30.8.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 3.9.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R4(a):- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE ASSOCIATION OF PILING CONTRACTORS FOR THE PERIOD UPTO 31.3.08. R4(b):- COPY OF THE MRMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DT. 29.4.08. R4(c):- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN ASSOCIATION OF PILING CONTRACT AND THE UNION FOR THE PERIOD UPTO 31.3.09. R4(d):- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA DETAILING THE SERVICE CONDITIONS AND WAGE STRUCTURE OF THE EMPLOYEES FOR THE PERIOD 2008-09. R5(a):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD O 31.8.08. R5(b):- COPY OF THE REQUEST GIEN BY THIS RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 1.9.08. R5(c):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNION TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA DT. 1.9.08. R5(d):- COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM DT. 4.9.08. R5(e):- COPY OF THE ONE SUCH AGREEMENT EXECUTED AT KIZHAKKAMBALAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO.27219 & 21800 OF 2008 ============================ Dated this the 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection to do the piling work awarded to him by its Principal, at a work site in Edathala Grama Panchayath. This Court, after hearing both sides, passed an interim order in this writ petition on 24-9-2008. The said order reads as follows: “The petitioner is a piling contractor, who has been awarded piling work of the construction of a building complex in Edathala Grama Panchayath. Ext.P2 is the letter of intent given to the petitioner for the work. Ext.P3 is the building permit granted to the principal of the petitioner for construction of that building complex. According to the petitioner, it has regular workmen who are on rolls of the company for doing the piling work. Claiming employment, the members of respondents 5,6 and others are causing obstruction to the piling work undertaken by the petitioner. Though the police was WPC. 27219 & 21800/ 2008 -2- moved by Exts.P5 and P6 representations, no action was taken by them. Hence, this writ petition. 2. All the party respondents have filed separate counter affidavits stating their version. Respondents 3 and 4 would submit that their members are entitled to be engaged by the petitioner. Respondents 5,6 and other additional respondents would submit that their members are denied employment for reason of their political faith and the petitioner is practising discrimination towards their members. So this Court may not order police protection. 3. We also heard the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the official respondents. We notice that the dispute arises if only the petitioner engages additional workmen apart from the workmen who are already on the rolls of the company. In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner proposes to engage only its own regular workmen, who are already on the rolls of the petitioner company. 4. The petitioner should be given freedom to engage workmen of its choice for their work. Since the petitioner has got permanent workmen who are included in the muster rolls maintained by it, the petitioner is entitled to get protection to engage those workmen without obstruction from outsiders. Accordingly, if there is any obstruction caused by any of the members of respondents 3 onwards, the petitioner may move the first respondent and in that event the first respondent shall remove the obstruction. If there is any dispute as to WPC. 27219 & 21800/ 2008 -3- whether the person engaged by the petitioner is on the rolls of the company or is a fresh hand from the open market, the disputing union can bring it to the notice of the Assistant Labour Officer concerned. The said officer in that event shall examine the muster roll maintained by the petitioner and render a decision thereon without any delay. The further engagement of the said person will depend upon the decision of the Assistant Labour Officer, Aluva. If he is not a person on the rolls of the company, the petitioner shall not be given any protection for the said worker's continued engagement. 5. The petitioner shall publish the list of permanent workmen who are on the rolls of the company tomorrow itself in the company site.” 2. Later, when the matter came up for further hearing, some of the trade Unions pointed out that the petitioner is not engaging permanent workmen named in the muster rolls, but engages fresh hands from the locality sponsored by certain Unions. In the above background, this Court directed the petitioner to produce his muster rolls with copy to the other side. When the matter came up for final hearing today, we heard the learned counsel on both sides. We feel that the writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the interim order dated WPC. 27219 & 21800/ 2008 -4- 24-9-2008. It is ordered accordingly. But, if the workmen have a case that the petitioner is not going by the conditions imposed by this Court in the above interim order, they may bring it to the notice of the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam and in that event the said officer shall hear both sides and render his decision on the dispute raised before him. The petitioner shall go by the decision of the District Labour Officer as a condition for getting continued police protection. If any dispute is raised, the District Labour Officer shall endeavour to hear and decide the matter within two weeks from the date of raising that dispute, as the work is of temporary nature and if delay is occasioned in taking the decision, the claim will become infructuous. The writ petition is disposed of as above. W.P.(C)No. 21800/2008 The facts of this case are identical to the facts of W.P.(C) No.27219/2008. The nature of dispute raised in this writ petition is identical to that in that case. So, in this case also, we authorise the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam to go into the dispute, if any, raised by the Unions or others who are parties to WPC. 27219 & 21800/ 2008 -5- this writ petition concerning the engagement of workmen by the petitioner. If such a dispute is raised, the District Labour Officer shall endeavour to hear and render his decision within two weeks from the date of receipt of the complaint. Once the decision is rendered, the petitioner shall go by the decision of the District Labour Officer. Continued protection of the police will depend upon the petitioner implementing that decision. The contentions of the petitioner and the trade Unions regarding the dispute of engaging workmen, who are stated to be already in the muster roll of the petitioner, are kept open. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks. WPC. 27219 & 21800/ 2008 -6- The petitioner is a piling contractor, who has been awarded piling work of the construction of a building complex in Edathala Grama Panchayath. Ext.P2 is the letter of intent given to the petitioner for the work. Ext.P3 is the building permit granted to the principal of the petitioner for construction of that building complex. According to the petitioner, it has regular workmen who are on rolls of the company for doing the piling work. Claiming employment, the members of respondents 5,6 and others are causing obstruction to the piling work undertaken by the petitioner. Though the police was moved by Exts.P5 and P6 representations, no action was taken by them. Hence, this writ petition. 2. All the party respondents have filed separate counter affidavits stating their version. Respondents 3 and 4 would submit that their members are entitled to be engaged by the petitioner. Respondents 5,6 and other additional respondents would submit that their members are denied employment for reason of their political faith and the petitioner is practising discrimination towards their members. So this Court may not order police protection. 3. We also heard the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the official respondents. We notice that the dispute arises if only the petitioner engages additional workmen apart from the workmen WPC. 27219 & 21800/ 2008 -7- who are already on the rolls of the company. In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner proposes to engage only its own regular workmen, who are already on the rolls of the petitioner company. 4. The petitioner should be given freedom to engage workmen to its choice for their work. Since the petitioner has got permanent workmen who are included in the muster rolls maintained by it, the petitioner is entitled to get protection to engage those workmen from obstruction from outsiders. Accordingly, if there is any obstruction caused by any of the members of respondents 3 onwards, the petitioner may move the first respondent and in that event the first respondent shall remove the obstruction. If there is any dispute as to whether the person engaged by the petitioner is on the rolls of the company or is a fresh hand from the open market, the disputing union can bring it to the notice of the Assistant Labour Officer concerned. The said officer in that event shall examine the muster roll maintained by the petitioner and render a decision thereon without any delay. The further engagement of the said person will depend upon the decision of the Assistant Labour Officer, Aluva. If he is not a person on the rolls of the company, the petitioner shall not be given any protection for the said worker's continued engagement. WPC. 27219 & 21800/ 2008 -8- 5. The petitioner shall publish the list of permanent workmen who are on the rolls of the company tomorrow itself in the company site. Call on 3-10-2008 along with connected cases. Handover. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.