IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4394 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.P.RAMADAS, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, KARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PATTITHARA P.O., ALUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI. 4. B.M.S.UNION, THRITHALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, P.K.VELAYUDHAN, B.M.S.OFFICE, HARIKKARA STREET, PALAKKAD. 5. VINOD KUMAR, S/O.KARUPPAN, ANTHOORUVALAPPIL, OTHALLOOR P.O., THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DIST. 6. P.V.RAMAN, PATTIPURATHU VALAPPIL, MAZHATHOOR, VIA.THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DIST. 7. HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, (C.I.T.U) REPRESENTED BY T.P.NOORDEEN, C.I.T.U. OFFICE, PATTITHARA. ADDL. 8. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O. AYAPPUNI, MACHINGAL HOUSE, OTHALLOOR, ANGADI AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK ADDL. 9. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OTTAPPALAM. ADDL. RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 19.2.10 IN I.A. NO. 2282/2010 AND IN I.A. NO. 2502/ 2010 RESPECTIVELY. BY G.P. SRI. T K VIPINDAS FOR R 1 TO 3 ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE PATTITHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DT.31.12.2009. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT GRANTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, PALAKKAD DT. 30.12.2009. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.24.1.2010 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.1.2010 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM DT. 9.9.2009 EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 32502 OF 2009 DT. 19.1.2010. EXT.A1: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.30.1.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 4394 of 2010 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The prayer in this Writ Petition is to issue a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to afford necessary and adequate police protection against respondents 4 to 6 and their supporters for the quarrying operation conducted by the petitioner on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is having Ext.P1 licence issued by the Panchayat and Ext.P2 permit granted by the Department of Mining and Geology. Respondents 4 to 7 are head load workers. There is a dispute between respondents 4 and 7, which are trade unions. Ext.P5 order was passed by the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam, by which it was found that the work W.P.(C).No. 4394 of 2010 2 shall be equally distributed to the workers belonging to both the unions. However, the 4th respondent has taken up the matter on the basis that they alone are entitled to work in the said area. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents to which reply affidavit was also filed. 4. We heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, including the learned Government Pleader. 5. It is not in dispute that there is a dispute between respondents 4 and 7 union. The District Labour Officer found that the work is to be distributed between the two unions. There is an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected and confirmed the order of the District Labour Officer holding that the work shall be equally distributed to the workers belonging to both the unions. 6. The 4th respondent union has filed Writ Petition No. 29340 of 2009, which is pending consideration. Ext.P6 is the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.P. 32502 of 2009. Apparently W.P.(C).No. 4394 of 2010 3 the Writ Petition was filed by the 5th respondent. Therein the learned Single Judge clarified that if respondents 5 and 6 and additional respondent No.7 therein are having the required licence, the Revenue Divisional Officer will permit them to carry on the quarry operations. It is also directed that respondents 5 and 6 and additional respondent No.7 will produce the original of the licence obtained by them before the Revenue Divisional Officer and on his satisfaction they will be permitted to conduct the quarry operation in terms of the conditions prescribed by various authorities including the Pollution Control Board. 7. We heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner had produced documents before the Revenue Divisional Officer to show that the petitioner can carry on quarry operation. 9. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that actually the members of the 4th respondent union alone have the right W.P.(C).No. 4394 of 2010 4 to carry on head load work in the area. It is submitted that all the work in the quarries are distributed either exclusively to the 4th respondent or sharing it with other unions and some quarries work is done exclusively by CITU workers. The authorities have found that the 4th respondent is doing the work in the area in question. It was also found that according to the 4th respondent, in respect of any new work, the work has to be distributed between respondents 4 and 7. This is the subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition filed by the 4th respondent, which is pending consideration. 10. The learned counsel for the 7th respondent submits that there is no obstruction from their part. They are agreeable for sharing the work between respondents 4 and 7. In view of the decision by the statutory authority, confirmed by the Appellate Authority, we would think that it may not be proper for the 4th respondent to insist that the petitioner should carry out the work exclusively with the workers owing allegiance to the 4th respondent alone. No doubt, writ petition W.P.(C).No. 4394 of 2010 5 filed by the 4th respondent is pending. As long as the orders are not set aside, we would think that the petitioner is entitled to protection for running the quarry in tune with the orders passed by the statutory authorities, viz. 50% work by the 4th respondent and the other 50% by the 7th respondent. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent would point out the order of the learned Single Judge. We have adverted to the same. He would submit that the consent of the Pollution Control Board is not there. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no specific direction as such and that the consent of the Pollution Control Board is not required. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that any direction issued by the Pollution Control Board in the matter of running of quarry will be complied with. We record the said submission. 12. The learned counsel for additional 7th respondent has a case that he is residing within 50 meters and this is in violation of Ext.P2 W.P.(C).No. 4394 of 2010 6 permit. He has filed a petition before this Court for measuring the distance . We ascertained the matter through the learned Government Pleader, who submits that the additional 7th respondent is not residing within 50 meters and that there is no house within 50 meters of the quarry. 13. The upshot of the discussion is that there will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to afford adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner for running the quarry in accordance with the permit and licence and also in accordance with any direction which may be given by the Pollution Control Board, from any interference from respondents 4 to 7 as long as the petitioner is permitting head load work being done on the basis of 50% sharing between the members of 4th respondent and 7th respondent unions. We further make it clear that we have not considered the claims of respondents 4 and 7, which is pending consideration in the writ petition filed by the 4th respondent. The petitioner will obtain a certificate from W.P.(C).No. 4394 of 2010 7 the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and produce it before the 8th respondent within one week. We leave open the claim of the additional 8th respondent. 14. Further this arrangement will be subject to the decision in Writ Petition No. 29340 of 2009. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm