IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 1478 of 2010(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOSE, AGED 35, S/O LAZAR, KALLUKARAN HOUSE, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OLLUR, THRISSUR. 4. ALL KERALA GAS AGENCY THOZHILALI UNION, C.I.T.U., THRISSUR DISTRICT COMMITTEE, REP.BY THE DISTRICT CONVENER AZHIKODAN SMARAKA MANDIRAM, MACHINGAL LANE, THRISSUR. * ADDL.R5 TO R12 IMPLEADED * ADDL.R5: SAJU JOSEPH, AGED 36 YEARS,S/O.JOSEPH, VALANAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MUTTITHADI.P.O., VELLANIKKODE THRISSUR. *ADDL.R6: THOMAS N.O., S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 34 YEARS, NELLIKKATTU HOUSE, PATTIKADU, THRISSUR. *ADDL.R7: SHIBHU GEORGE, S/O.M.C. GEORGE, AGED 39YEARS, CHIRAYATH HOUSE,NEDUMPAL, THOTTIPAL.P.O., THRISSUR. sts WP(C)NO.1478/2010 *ADDL.R8: SHAJI.T.H., S/O.HARIDAS.T.P., AGED 44 YEARS, THOPPIL HOUSE, VADUKKARA.P.O., THRISSUR. *ADDL.R9: STANLO GEORGE, S/O.C.L. GEORGE, AGED 33 YEARS, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, PUTHUKKAD.P.O., THRISSUR. *ADDL.R10: VINCENT.V.A., S/O.V.K.ANTONY, AGED 41 YEARS, KURAVATH HOUSE, THOTTIPPAL.P.O., THRISSUR. *ADDL.R11: NIJISH.E.A., S/O. ANIYAN, AGED 26 YEARS, ELLIKKATTU HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM.P.O., THRISSUR. *ADDL.R12: REVI.T.S., S/O. SHANKARAN, AGED 44 YEARS, THADATHIL HOUSE, PARALAM.P.O., THRISSUR. * ADDL.R5 TO R12 ARE IMPLEADED ASPER ORDER DATED 28/1/2010 IN I.A.NO.1012/2010. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M.CHARISMA R4 BY ADV. SRI.A.ANTONY SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY ADDL.R5 TOR12 BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.1478/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA DATED 9/12/97. P2 COPY OF THE DISTRIBUTORSHIP AGREEMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 5/8/03. P3 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 10/11/09. P4 COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTEDBY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 4/12/09. R5 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 5/12/09. P6 COPY OF THE REQUEST BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 4/12/09. P7 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER GRANTED IN WP(C)NO.24745/09 DATED 27/8/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A) COPY OF THE G.O.)RT)NO.704/2009 DATED 27/05/2009. R5(B) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILEDBEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, DATED 4/12/2009. R5(C) COPY OF THE SEARCH LIST DATED 27/10/2009 ALONG WITH THE LIST OF EMPLOYEES. R5(D) COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 05/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER THRISSUR. R5(E) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY ME BEFORE THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR DATED 05/12/2009. R5(F) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06/12/2009 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. R5(G) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/01/2010 PREFERRED BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR. R5(H) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/01/2010 R5(I) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUE, DATED 18/01/2010. R5(J) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.33815/2008 DATED18/11/2008. R5(K) COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.98/2009/LBR DATED 22/01/2009. R5(L) COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED16/10/2009 R5(M) COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30/10/2009. /TRUE COPY/ sts P.A.TO.JUDGE R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.1478 of 2010-H ***************************** Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 2 and 3 to afford protection for the petitioner for the peaceful and orderly conduct of his gas agency business. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent, an association of gas agency workers, is illegally obstructing the work of the petitioner. 2. Interim directions were issued by this Court on 18.01.2010. The 4th respondent, though served, has not chosen to enter appearance. Subsequently respondents 5 to 12, who admittedly were undertaking the work of distribution for the petitioner's establishment, have come on record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and respondents 5 to 12. The petitioner wants the gas cylinders to be distributed. The distribution boys undertake W.P(C) No.1478 of 2010-H 2 the work and they get remuneration for the work done by them from the customers. Respondents 5 to 12 are staking a claim for status as direct employees under the petitioner. They are staking the claim for minimum wages. The petitioner takes the stand that they are not employees and the petitioner is not liable to pay minimum wages to respondents 5 to 12. 4. The learned counsel for respondents 5 to 12 submits that the assertion made by the petitioner is not correct. Respondents 5 to 12 are employees under the petitioner. They are entitled to minimum wages and other benefits. The petitioner is not accepting them as his employees and is not paying benefits which are legally due to respondents 5 to 12. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 12 now submit that respondents 10 and 12 are undertaking the work of distribution of gas cylinders now. The petitioner asserts that the petitioner is willing to give work on such terms to respondents 5 to 9 and 11 also. Respondents 5 to 12 claim to be entitled for recognition of their status as permanent employees and also for minimum wages. 6. We are of the opinion that the claim of respondents 5 to 12 for status as permanent employees and for minimum wages W.P(C) No.1478 of 2010-H 3 must be raised, considered and settled before appropriate authorities. The learned counsel for respondents 5 to 12 submits that they have already initiated steps in that direction. Respondents 5 to 12 assert that they have no intention to obstruct the work of the petitioner. They are willing to work for the petitioner subject to their claims for recognition of status as permanent workers and also for minimum wages. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those claims can be decided by appropriate authorities. Till then, respondents 5 to 12, if they so choose, can undertake the work of distribution, on the same terms on which respondents 10 and 12 now work subject to availability of work. But they are not entitled to obstruct the work. 7. We record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 12 that respondents 10 and 12 are now undertaking the work of delivery of gas cylinders. We record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to permit respondents 5 to 9 and 11 also to undertake such work of distribution of gas cylinders on the same terms subject to availability of work. We record the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 12 that they shall not obstruct the W.P(C) No.1478 of 2010-H 4 work of the petitioner. 8. We are satisfied that this Writ Petition can, in these circumstances, be allowed. We accept the undertaking of respondents 5 to 12 that they shall not obstruct the work of the petitioner. Appropriate directions on the basis of that undertaking can be issued. We record the undertaking of the petitioner that respondents 5 to 12, subject to availability of work, shall be permitted to undertake the work of delivery of gas cylinders. We record the submission of the petitioner as well as respondents 5 to 12 that all the disputes between them can be raised and settled before the appropriate authorities in accordance with law. 9. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, allowed. If there be any obstruction against distribution of gas cylinders by respondents 5 to 12, respondents 2 and 3 shall afford adequate police protection to the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/