IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 29795 of 2010(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PARUMALA TRANSPORT, TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS & CARGO MOVERS, P.O. CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR-680 026, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER BINOY ALEX. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. BIJU.K.R, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN.M.K, KARIMALAKADU HOUSE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKOM - 686 143. 2. DEEPU.M.D, S/O.DIVAKARAN, MADATHIL HOUSE, SOUTH PARAVUR PO, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 320. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UDAYAMPEROOR - 682 307. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRIPUNITHURA - 682 301. R1 & 2 BY ADVS. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SRI.ABHISHEK KURIAN R3 & R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 29795/2010(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF COMPLAINT LODGED BY SRI.K.BALASUBRAMANIAM. P2: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26/09/2010 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 16/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 18/12/2010 FILED BY SRI.K.BALASUBRAMANIAM BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 30/12/2009 IS PRODUCED. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:29795 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th January, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 to respondents 3 and 4 to afford protection for the petitioner and his willing employees against illegal acts on the part of respondents 1 and 2. 2. According to the petitioner respondents 1 and 2 were employed by the petitioner as lorry drivers. Respondents 1 and 2 allegedly assaulted one Shri. K.Balasubramaniam, supervisor of the petitioner. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them and they were directed not to come for work, pending completion of disciplinary proceedings. However, respondents 1 and 2 started coming to establishment and causing obstruction to the peaceful transaction of business by the petitioner. They threatened and assaulted employees and willing workmen. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has now come to this Court seeking directions. WPC 29795/2010 2 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have entered appearance through counsel. Their counsel submits that respondents 1 and 2 are not interested now in working under the petitioner. It is submitted that respondents 1 and 2 shall not in any way obstruct peaceful transaction of the business by the petitioner. They shall not indulge in culpable and contumacious acts against the petitioner or his employees including Shri.Balasubramaniam, the supervisor. However, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the said Balasubramaniam his misutilising the interim order passed by this Court and therefore appropriate safeguards may be insisted. 4. On 28/9/2010 when the matter came up for admission notice was ordered to the respondents. There was a further order that :- “There will be an interim order as prayed for” The interim order prayed for was that pending final decision in the writ petition respondents 3 and 4 should provide adequate and effective protection to the petitioner, his supervisors and his willing workmen for ingress and egress of their vehicles at the IOC bottling plant at Udayamperoor, and also for plying the vehicles to their destination without let or interference from respondents 1 and 2 and their supporters and sympathizers. WPC 29795/2010 3 5. We fail to understand how such an order can be misutilised by the supervisor. We accept the submission of respondents 1 and 2 that they are not interested in continuing as employees of the petitioner. We record the submission of respondents 1 and 2 that they shall not indulge in contumacious, culpable or violent acts against the petitioner or his employees. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 that if there be any contumacious and culpable conduct on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in violation of the above undertaking, respondents 3 and 4 shall take necessary action and afford protection to the petitioner and his supervisor. We are satisfied in these circumstances that no further specific directions are necessary. 6. This writ petition in these circumstances is allowed in part to the above extent. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 29795/2010 4