IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30728 of 2011(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.R.SALIMRAJ, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, BADGE NO.83286, MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT, BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, COCHIN REFINERY, AMABALAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.KEERTHI SOLOMON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARIMUGAL POLICE STATION, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM - 682 303. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRIPUNITHURA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 301 3. SRI.SURENDRAN NAIR, GENERAL SECRETARY, BADGE NO.1205, BHARATH PETROLEUM LTD., KOCHIN REFINERY, ERNAKULAM. 4. SRI.JOSEPH ALOSIOUS, MEMBER CREA, BADGE NO.1781, BHARATH PETROLEUM LTD, KOCHI REFINERY, ERNAKULAM. 5. SRI.SOMANATHAN .T.M, BADGE NO.1764, BHARATH PETROLEUM LTD., KOCHI REFINERY, ERNAKULAM. --2-- --2-- WP(C).No. 30728 of 2011(M) 6. SRI. SURESH KUMAR.P, BDGE NO.1285, BHARATH PETROLEUM LTD., KOCHI REFINERY, ERNAKULAM. 7. R.R.KINI, BADGE NO.1833, BHARATH PETROLEUM LTD., KOCHI REFINERY, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER, SR.GOVT.PLEADER R3 TO R7 BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.T.D.SALIM SRI.PAUL C THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 30728 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : THE LETTER DTD 7/8/09 TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION EXT.P2 : THE DETAILS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DTD 24/10/2009 EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD 7/8/2010 EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD 12/11/2011 EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 12/11/2011 EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 15/11/2011. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 08.03.2011 EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.12.2008. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LONG TERM SETTLEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 01.08.1998 TO 31.07.2008 SHOWING THE NAME OF THE CERA, CERTIFIED BY THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER CENTRAL. EXT.R3(b) : COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 04.06.2010 BY THE CREA. EXT.R3(c) : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION DATED 30.07.2010. EXT.R3(d) : COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE GENERAL MANAGER HR BPCL KOCHI REFINERY DATED 04.08.2010. EXT.R3(e) : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.11.2011 ISSUED BY CREA TO THE GENERAL MANAGER -HR. --2-- DG --2-- WP(C).No. 30728 of 2011(M) EXT.R3(f) : COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM THE VIJAYA KUMARA MENON HOSPITAL. EXT.R3(g) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REGISTER OF PETITIONS ISSUED FROM THE AMBALAMUGAL POLICE STATION EXT.R3(h) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE GIST OF THE DECISIONOF THE SHO IN RESPECT OF THE COMPLAINT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DG PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 30728 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner, who is an Instrumentation Technician of Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Cochin Refinery at Ambalamugal claims to be an Executive Committee member of CREA (Cochin Refineries Employees Association) lead by the Indian National Trade Union Congress has filed this writ petition seeking police protection directions for his life from the union leaders of Cochin Refineries Employees Association. As it was noticed that despite various allegation levelled against the leaders of CREA, the petitioner has not chosen to array any one of them as the nominee, we directed the petitioner to implead them. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to implead the respondents 3 to 7, who are the present office bearers of the Union. They have filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein they say that the instant writ petition is a sheer abuse of process of law and that there is absolutely no warrant for rendition of any police protection direction in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that it is the petitioner who is creating problems and it is against the petitioner that protection directions should be issued in favour of W.P(C) No. 30728 of 2011 2 respondents 3 to 7 and the other employees of Cochin Refinery. 2. Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned Senior Government Pleader on the basis of instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the allegations in the writ petition are incorrect. The enquiry reveals that there is no threat to the life or limbs of the petitioner from the part of any of the party respondents or for that matter anybody in the Cochin Refineries. To the counter affidavit a reply has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the averments in the writ petition. 3. We have heard the submissions of Smt.Keerthi Solomon, the learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash, the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7. We have also heard the submissions of Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. According to Smt.Keerthi Solomon, the petitioner is living under constant fear on account of the threat, assaults and other contumacious acts of respondents 3 to 7. Without any specific direction from this Court, it will very difficult for the petitioner to discharge his duty as an Instrument Technician. 5. Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash, the learned counsel for the party respondents submits that there is no warrant for issuance of police protection directions. W.P(C) No. 30728 of 2011 3 6. We have considered the rival pleadings raised by the parties and we have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We are not convinced that there is any warrant for issuance of any specific direction sought for in this writ petition. We decline the relief sought for in this writ petition. However we permit the petitioner to file petitions before the 1st respondent if any specific instances of imminent danger to his life or limbs arises from the part of the party respondents. If the 1st respondent receives any such petitions, the 1st respondent shall conduct immediate enquiry into the petitions and if the enquiry reveals that there is truth in the allegations in the prospective petition, then it shall be the duty of the 1st respondent to take steps to protect life and limbs of the petitioner. At any rate the 1st respondent shall keep vigil and ensure that the dispute between the petitioner and the party respondents do not give rise to any law and order situation. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab