IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 1093 of 2010(J) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- E.K.C.GRANITES, CHERUPPADI, P.O.KANNAMMANGALAM (WEST), VIA.A.R.NAGAR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 305, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER E.K.ABDUL AZEEZ. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, HEAD LOAD WORKERS & GENERAL WORKERS UNION (INTUC) CHERUPPADI UNIT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 305. ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) FOR R 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.1093 OF 2010 J PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LICENCE ISSUED BY THE KANNAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 5.5.2008. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO ONE ABDUL RAZAK, WORKER OF THE PETITIONER AND DATED NIL. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO ONE SHOWKATHALI, WORKER OF THE PETITIONER AND DATED NIL. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO ONE MOHAMMED IQBAL, WORKER OF THE PETITIONER AND DATED NIL. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO ONE SAITHALAVI, WORKER OF THE PETITIONER AND DATED NIL. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE CRUSHER OWNERS ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHER CRUSHER UNITS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.1.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT/uNION TO THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, THIRURANGADI. //True copy// PS to Judge K.M. JOSEPH & M. C. HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 1093 OF 2010 J ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th October, 2010. JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to afford the petitioner with adequate protection for its properties including for loading and unloading of metal by its own employees and during transit of his vehicles from the quarry from third respondent's men. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to afford protection to the petitioner and his vehicles from the threat of respondent No.3 while loading and unloading the metal from the tipper vehicles.” W.P.(C).NO.1093/2010 J 2 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a Company represented by its Managing Partner. Ext.P1 is the licence issued by the Grama Panchayat. Petitioner has got its own permanent workers for loading metal from the quarry site and granite site. The unloading work is done through the tipper lorries owned by the petitioner. The third respondent has obstructed. Exts.P2 to P5 are the identity cards. Petitioner filed Ext.P6. 3. A Counter Affidavit is filed by the third respondent denying the allegations. Ext.R3(a) is a complaint filed by the 3rd respondent Union against the registration granted to the alleged workers of the petitioner. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the quarry is situated in an area wherein the Scheme is not applicable. W.P.(C).NO.1093/2010 J 3 Even then, they are engaging only registered workers covered by Exts.P2 to P5. Learned counsel for the party respondent points out that they have filed complaint against the same. 6. In view of the fact that the petitioner is doing the loading work by using workers having registration, we do not see that there can be any valid reason for the third respondent to obstruct the loading work being done in the petitioner's quarry. Of course, if any proceedings have been initiated against the issuance of the Identity Cards before the statutory authorities, that can be brought to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide protection to the properties of the petitioner including the loading work of metal by employing the workers covered by Exts.P2 to P5 from any obstruction from the members of the third respondent Union. However, we make it clear that if the third respondent has instituted any statutory proceedings before the statutory authorities against issuance of the Identity Cards, this W.P.(C).NO.1093/2010 J 4 Judgment will not stand in the way of the statutory authorities taking any further proceedings in accordance with law. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE kbk. //True copy// PS to Judge