IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27394 of 2008(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.ABDUL SALEEM, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.ALAVI HAJEE (LATE), CHENGOT HOUSE, CALICUT - 4. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA SMT.A.LOWSY RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.I. OF POLICE, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. C.I.T.U., REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AMBALAKANDY UNIT, CHERUKAVU VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, KOLLANKANDI PALLIYALI HOUSE, KANNAMVETTIKKAVU, PULIKKAL VIA, MALAPPURAM. WPC NO.27394/2008 -2- 5. NASER P., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.BEERANKUTTY, KARIMPANAKUZHI HOUSE, KANNAMVETTIKKAVU, PULIKKAL VIA, MALAPPURAM. 6. BABU ALIAS FAIZAL, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED TEESHA, AMBANADATH HOUSE, KANNAMVETTIKAVU, PULIKKAL VIA, MALAPPURAM. 7. SIDHIQUE, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.ALAVI, KONDALATH HOUSE, PUTHUKKODE, RAMANATTUKARA P.O MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 8. HAMZA, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAVARAN, CHELAT PURACKAL HOUSE, KANNAMVETTIKKAVU, PULIKKAL VIA., MALAPPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL. R3 TO R8 SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 27394/2008: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED DATED 30.8.2008 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.599/2008. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT BY REGISTERED POST. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3A. TRUE COPIES OF THE IDENTITY CARDS ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KONDOTTY TO RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8 UNDER RULE 26A OF THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS RULES. EXT.R3B. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT EXECUTED ON 6.12.2006. EXT.R3C. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KONDOTTY DATED 17.9.2008. H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.27394 of 2008-J ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. Petitioner claims that he is running a stone crusher unit at Vazhayoor Village in Malappuram District in the name and style of “Chengot Stone Crusher.” It is further claimed that he has got his own workers to cater to the loading and unloading activities required for his establishment. But, according to the petitioner, respondents 3 to 8 are causing obstruction to the loading and unloading activities in his establishment. He, therefore , prays for a direction to respondent No.1 to afford adequate police protection to enable him to function his unit smoothly. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.8 it is averred that the petitioner has suppressed many material facts. According to this respondent, petitioner is running a crusher unit 5 k.ms. away from the area in question. It is further averred that the dispute with regard to the 'granite quarry' of the petitioner was taken up before the Assistant Labour Officer, Kondotty who had convened a concilliation meeting on September, 24, 2008. Though the representatives of the union were present in the meeting, the petitioner had refused to W.P.C. No.27394/2008 -2- participate in the meeting. It is also averred that the petitioner had come into the picture only in August, 2008 when he allegedly obtained right over a quarry in that area. But in 2006 work arrangement in various quarries in the area had been settled through agreement executed between quarry owners and representatives of various trade unions. 3. We have carefully perused the averments in the writ petition and the counter affidavit. In our view, the disputed questions in relation to the rights of various trade unions and quarry crusher owners cannot be decided by us in this writ petition. As rightly pointed out by respondent No.8, the issue is pending consideration before the Assistant Labour Officer. Therefore, petitioner has to necessarily work out his remedies with regard to the dispute, if any, pending between him and the head load workers by approaching the competent authority. We do not find any ground to interfere in the matter. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS