IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16467 of 2010(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SOMATHEERAM AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL & YOGA CENTRE (P) LTD., CHOWARA P.O.,SOUTH KOVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM.REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANGING DIRECTOR, POLLY MATHEW, AGED 59,S/O.A.J.MATHEW, ARAMBANKUDIYIL, CHOWARA P.O., SOUTH KOVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI, SRI.PRAMOD KOCHUTHOMMEN.E. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIZHINJAM, VIZHINAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIZHINJAM, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FORT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DISTRICT. 4. RAJESH S., HOTEL PARDISE, NEAR PULIMKUDY, MULLOOR P.O., VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. ANILKUMAR, SECRETARY, BAHARATHEEYA KANKAR SENA, SENA BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. BHARATHEEYA KANKAR SENA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SENA BHAVAN, FORT P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16467/2010 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE BROCHURE/PROFILE OF THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION. P2: COPY OF THE STATE TOURISM AWARD OF DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DURING THE YEAR 2004-2005. P2(A): COPY OF THE STATE TOURISM AWARD OF DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DURING THE YEAR 1999-2000. P2(B): COPY OF THE STATE TOURISM AWARD OF DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM GOVERNEMENT OF KERALA DURING THE YEAR 2000-2001. P2(C): COPY OF THE STATE TOURISM AWARD OF DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM GOVERNEMENT OF KERALA DURING THE YEAR 2003-2004. P2(D): COPY OF THE STATE TOURISM AWARD OF DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM GOVERNEMENT OF KERALA DURING THE YEAR 2005-2006. P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 3/05/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3(A): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.04/05/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C.)No.16467 of 2010-G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner complains that activities in his establishment are being interfered with by respondents 4 to 6 and that there is threat to the property of the petitioner. At the stage of admission, the following interim order was issued: “Admitted. Notice by special messenger. There will be an interim order that the police will ensure that law and order is maintained and life and property of the petitioner is secured and there is no hindrance to the business activity of the petitioner.” WPC16467/10 -: 2 :- When this matter is taken up today, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 states that the petitioner has various employees and he had resorted to certain unfair labour practices and that the Human Rights Commission has also been moved by an employee. If there is any labour dispute, it has to be brought to the notice of the competent authorities so that it could be taken cognizance of in accordance with law and an attempt to resolution in terms of the labour laws would be made. While respondents 4 to 6 may have their right to object by lawful means, we are clear in our mind that, that does not include any entitlement to interfere with the life and property of the petitioner. We also record the submission made by the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 that the interim order dated 31.5.2010 would not by itself create any problem for the contesting respondents. Accordingly, we make the said interim order absolute and direct that any complaint made by respondents 4 to 6 in WPC16467/10 -: 3 :- relation to any unfair labour practice would be attended to by the competent authorities in accordance with law after hearing the necessary parties. The writ petition ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/0806