IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 2256 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SASIDHARAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.CHAMIYAR, MALLANKAD HOUSE, POTTA, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. PRAJEESH, THAYYIL HOUSE, KUZHIKKATTUSSERY PO,CHALAKKUDY. 2. MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK MADAYAVYAVASAYA THOZHILALI UNION(CITU), MALA PO, REP.BY SECRETARY, C.R.PURUSHOTHAMAN. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA. ADDL. R5. THE D.L.O. TRICHUR (IMPLEADED SUO MOTTO AS PER ORDER DT.23.3.2010.) ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE FOR R2 SRI.K.D.BABU R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI. T.K. VIPINDAS ADV. SRI.BIJU MARTIN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON 22/11/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF KERALA TODDY IDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REGULATION AND COTROL RULES (IRC RULES). EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, DT. 20.10.2009. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF GROUP 4 TODDY SHOPS OF THE MONTH DECEMBER, 2009. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF SALARY SLIP ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR DECEMBER, 2009. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.3.1.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF RULES. /TRUE COPY/ K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 2256 of 2010 F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph Francis, J. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner, in the event of any obstruction from members of the second respondent union, in the petitioner discharging his duty as toddy shop worker in Kuttikkad toddy shop. 2. The case of the petitioner briefly is as follows. One K.P. Wilson was the registered toddy shop worker in Kuttikkad toddy shop in Mala range. He had relinquished his work in the toddy shop. The petitioner was appointed by the first respondent licensee to do the work in Kuttikkad toddy shop from 1.12.2009 onwards. The petitioner has actually worked in the Kuttikkad shop from 1.12.2009, as can be seen from Exts.P3 and P4. However, the W.P.(C).No. 2256 of 2010 2 members of the second respondent union is unnecessarily and illegally obstructing the work of the petitioner for the sole reason that the petitioner has not joined the CITU union. He filed Ext.P5 representation. But the police have not taken any steps to redress his grievance. 3. The first respondent filed counter stating that he has no objection in engaging the petitioner as toddy shop worker in the toddy shop. The second respondent filed counter stating that the appointment can be made only with the concurrence of the local unions in view of Rule 19(2) of Ext.R2(a) Rules. Additional 5th respondent also filed a counter affidavit. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the party respondents and the learned Government Pleader. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, District Labour Officer, Trichur, it is stated that the petitioner was employed in toddy shop No.72 of Kuttikkad in Mala Excise Range for the period from 1.12.2009 to 28.2.2010 as salesman and since one trade W.P.(C).No. 2256 of 2010 3 union protested against his employment, the first respondent licensee removed him from employment in his shop. It is further stated that the petitioner is a member of AITUC and he was appointed as a nominee of AITCU in the place of K.P. Wilson, who was working in the shop fell seriously ill. 6. As per clause 21 of the Kerala Toddy Industrial Labour Relations Rules, if a registered worker becomes ill and it becomes impossible for him to work, that worker can opt another person with approval of the Union, in which he is a member. But the said rules are applicable only for Toddy Tappers and not applicable to Toddy Shop Workers. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief based on Clause 21 of the above Rules, as he is a Toddy shop worker. 7. There is no dispute that Ext.R2(a) Kerala Madya Vyazvasaya Banda Kramikarana Chattam is applicable to the facts of this case. Clause 19 reads as follows: “ Clause 19: W.P.(C).No. 2256 of 2010 4 As per Clause 19 of Ext.R2(a) Rules, appointment can be made only with the concurrence of the concerned local unions. There is no scope to read the word 'unions' as union. Since the second respondent union has not consented to the appointment of the petitioner, he is not entitled to get any relief in this Writ Petition. 8. Accordingly this Writ Petition is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm