IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1775 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22658/2008 Dated 20/08/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T. RAMDAS, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.V.V. RADHAKRISHNA MENON, AREA MANAGER, PALAKKAD, FOOD, DRUGS AND CHEMICALS (FDC), RESIDING AT T.C 50/1643/1, KONGALAM, ARAMADA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MURALI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, KERALA REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD, DRUGS AND CHEMICAL (FDC), RESIDING AT SOWGANDHIKAM, KARAKUNNU.P.O, MANJERI - 676 123. 3. VINOD KUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. P. NARAYANAN GURUKKAL, DISTRICT MANAGER, FOOD, DRUGS AND CHEMICAL (FDC), RESIDING AT SRUTHI, AZHIKODE, KANNUR-9. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- C.P. GOPIKRISHNAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, STATE SECRETARY, B.M.S.R.A (BMS), KARAMAMYTHRI, OPP. KANAKASREE AUDITORIUM, S.K. TEMPLE ROAD, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT JYOTHI, CHAMPAKA HOUSING COLONY, CHALAPURAM, KOZHIKODE-2. ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.T.V.VINU THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- CONTEMPT CASE (C) NO. 1775/2008-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 6th January, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are the petitioners in Annexure-A1 order and Annexure-AII final judgment. Alleging that the direction in Annexure-A1, which has been made absolute by Annexure-AII, has been violated by the respondent herein, this contempt application is filed. The direction in Annexure-A1 reads as follows: “We heard the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents also. The petitioners shall ensure that the management of their company co-operates with the conciliation machinery or any conference convened by the statutory authorities to settle the dispute between the management and the 6th respondent. We record the submission made by the 6th respondent that he or his members have no intention to physically harm or obstruct the petitioners. If there is any obstruction, the petitioners may inform the Sub Inspector concerned. If the allegation is found correct, the Sub Inspector of Police shall remove the obstruction. But, if the management of the petitioners' Company does not co-operate with the conciliation machineries/statutory authorities, the order of protection will remain in force only for a period of two months from today. COC 1775/08 2 Thereafter, its continuance will depend upon their co-operation with the conciliation/statutory machinery for settlement of the dispute.” This Court recorded the submission of the 6th respondent therein, who is the respondent in this contempt application that he or the members of his union have no intention to physically harm or obstruct the petitioners. This Court further ordered that if there is any further obstruction, the petitioners may inform the Sub Inspector of Police concerned. If the allegation of obstruction is found correct, the Sub Inspector of Police was directed to remove the obstruction. But, the petitioners submit, in violation of the undertaking given, the 6th respondent and the members of the union represented by him are causing obstruction to them. They also submit that on information being lodged, the police have registered Crime No.728/2008 of Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode against the members of the 6th respondent's union. Therefore, it is evident that the 6th respondent has violated the undertaking given, it is submitted. 2. Though this Court recorded the undertaking given by the 6th respondent in Annexure-A1 order, it was further ordered what should be done in case there is violation of that undertaking. Therefore, we feel that the present contempt application filed against the 6th respondent in the writ petition on the allegation that the members of his union caused obstruction, COC 1775/08 3 cannot be entertained. It is not expedient or necessary to proceed against the said respondent for the violation of the undertaking given by him on behalf of his union. The petitioners have the remedy before the concerned police. If the police did not take any effective action, the petitioners can initiate contempt proceedings against the police officials and not against the 6th respondent in the writ petition. In view of the above position, we are not inclined to proceed with the contempt application. Accordingly, it is closed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. Nm/