IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36796 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ P.M.KUNJU BAVA, MANAGING DIRECTOR J.B.S.INTERMIX AND RUBBER PRODUCTS PVT LTD, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, MUPPATHADAM ALUVA PIN-683110, ( S/O.HYDOSEKUTTY, REISIDING AT PALLATHUKADAVIL HOUSE, PANAIKULAM P.O., ALUVA PIN-683511 BY ADVS. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY SRI.K.A.HAZAN RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2. THE ASST LABOUR OFFICER, N.PARUR - 683513 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ERNAKULAM(RURAL), ALUVA PIN.683101 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALUVA POLICE STATION, ALUVA-683101 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, BINANIPURAM-683502 6. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM MARKET, KOCHI-35 7. THE SECRETARY, ALUVA MEHHALA HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION-INTUC, MUPPATHADAM P.O., ALUVA PIN-683110 8. THE SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM JILLA HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION, CITU, MUPPATHADAM SOUTH, MUPPATHADAM P.O. 683110 9. SRI.K.K.SHIJU, THE POOL LEADER, POOL NO 33 , UNDER THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD SUB COMMITTEE ALUVA, MUPPATHADAM, MUPPATHADAM P.O., ALUVA PIN-683110 R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R6 BY ADVS. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB R7 & 8 ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36796 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION NO.32150998359 DATED 03.02.2010 OF COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER. EXT.P2. (A) TO ©. COPIES OF THE THREE IDENTITY CARDS ISSUED BY THE ASST. LABOUR OFFICER, N.PARUR. EXT.PP3(A) & (B). COPIES OF THE APPLICATIONS DATED 02.09.2010 FILED BY TWO WORKERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 (AA) & (BA). COPIES OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE NOTICE IN FORM X ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ENQUIRY ON EXHIBITS P3(A) AND (B). EXT.P5. COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.11.2010 IN WRIT PETITION 33390/2010 EXT.P6. COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19.11.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 4.11.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29.11.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 (A) TO (C). COPIES OF TWO COMPLAINTS DATED 02.12.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD AND 5TH RESPONENTS AND A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 02.12.2010 FILED BY TWO WORKERS BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10.(A) TO (B). COPIES OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE 6TH AND 7 & 8TH RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P11. COPY of the PETITION DATED 7.12.2010 SENT TO 5TH RESPONDENT TO REMOVE THE TEMPORARY STRUCTURE IN FRONT OF THE GATE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBT ------------------------------------ EXT.R7(A). COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO580/2010 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, DATED 02.12.2010. / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.36796 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner, who is already armed with Ext.P5 order, has come to this Court again now seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 3 to 5 to afford police protection to him against the illegal conduct of respondents 7 to 9. 2. The petitioner runs an industry. The work of loading and unloading is available in the establishment. For that, three persons have been registered under the relevant provisions of law. An application for registration of two more employees are pending. The petitioner came to this Court earlier raising a grievance that respondents 7 to 9 herein are not permitting the three registered workers to work within the establishment. Interim order dated 3.11.2010 was granted. We have perused that order. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment. The interim order was confirmed and wpc No.36796/2010 2 the petitioner was permitted to get the loading and unloading work done by his workers having registration cards, Ext.P5(a), P5(b) and P5(c) in that writ petition. 3. The work in the establishment is now going on. The three loading and unloading workers are attending to the work. The petitioner has now come to this Court with this petition again. What is his grievance? According to him, those three workers are sufficient to do the loading and unloading work. He has no grievance against respondents 7 to 9 on that aspect now. But it is his grievance that respondents 7 to 9 are obstructing the other workers in the establishment from doing their work. The police is not affording adequate protection to the other employees. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner is forced to come before this Court to seek further directions. The petitioner complains that a shed has been put up by respondents 7 to 9 near the premises of the petitioner. Sitting there, they are obstructing the other employees. Appropriate directions for grant of police protection under Article 226 may in these circumstances be issued, it is prayed. wpc No.36796/2010 3 4. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Respondents 7 to 9 have entered appearance through counsel. Respondents 7 to 9 submit that the present grievance is without any merit. The work of loading and unloading work in the establishment cannot be undertaken by the three workers in respect of whom protection order was given in Ext.P5. The petitioner wants to clandestinely employ other workers, for doing loading and unloading work. Of course, he had applied for registration of two more workers. Large loads are coming and it is impossible for the petitioner to get the work done by those three persons. Ext.P5 order makes it clear that the order will cover only those three workers and they alone can do the loading and unloading work. A shed has been put up long back. According to respondents 7 to 9, the same has been in existence for the past about a decade. Members of respondents 7 to 9 are remaining there, so that they can watch the loads being brought to the establishment. It is a rest shed for the loading and unloading workers belonging to respondents 7 to 9. A police constable is posted in duty in pursuance of Ext.P5. Whenever loads come, the wpc No.36796/2010 4 members of respondents 7 to 9 insist that the unloading work must be done only by the three employees as permitted under Ext.P5 order. When other employees are attempted to be employed for the said work, the members of respondents 7 to 9 bring it to the notice of the police constable on duty. This is all that has been done by respondents 7 to 9. They are not in any way obstructing the work in accordance with Ext.P5 order. In these circumstances, the attempt of the petitioner to secure a further order to enable him to get the work of loading and unloading done by the workers other than the three employees permitted under Ext.P5 may be thwarted. Such a blanket order of police protection may not be granted, prays the learned counsel for respondents 7 to 9. 5. The learned standing counsel for the 6th respondent submits that Ext.P5 order can justify only the work of loading and unloading in the establishment being done by the three persons specified therein. No other person can be permitted to do the work. If there is extra work, it must certainly be given to other registered loading and unloading pool workers. wpc No.36796/2010 5 6. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 submits that to the knowledge of those respondents, Ext.P5 directions are being followed meticulously. A constable is posted on duty and it is ensured that those three workmen referred to in Ext.P5 are permitted to work. No other is permitted to work. Under Ext.P5, the police authorities are bound to ensure that those three persons work and no other persons do the loading and unloading work. In the perspective of respondents 1 to 5, there is no threat whatsoever for the working of the petitioner's establishment. 7. We have considered all the relevant inputs. It is crucial to note that there is no complaint raised that Ext.P5 order has not been complied with. As rightly pointed out by all the respondents, there is no grievance that the police have committed contempt by not complying with Ext.P5 directions. We are not satisfied that any other threat is posed to the working of the petitioner's establishment. We are in these circumstances satisfied that no further directions in addition to Ext.P5 deserve to be issued. We make it clear that respondents 7 to 9 wpc No.36796/2010 6 cannot raise any obstruction to the peaceful running of the petitioner's business, but they can certainly object to the loading and unloading work being done by anyone other than the three persons specified in Ext.P5. The respondent police officials shall ensure that the directions in Ext.P5 referred to above are strictly enforced. We are not satisfied that any further directions deserve to be issued. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/