IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3017 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MOHAMMED SALIH.P.A., S/O. ABOOBACKERKUTTY, POTHUVATHARA VEEDU, PAMPIRI.P.O.,CHITTAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SALIM V.S. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MOOVATTUPUZHA. 3. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, LABOUR OFFICE, REVENUE TOWER, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. CHANDRABOSE, SECRETARY, CITU, NELLIKUZHY BRANCH, KOTHAMANGALAM. 5. M.V.SANTU, SECRETARY, CITU, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADDL.6. THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, LOCAL COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM. (The additional 6th respondent is impleaded as per order on I.A.No.1918/2010 dated 10.2.2010) R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA. R4 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH R6 BY ADV.SRI.KOSHY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3017 of 2010(B) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1..TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT DATED 19.11.2009. EXT.P2..TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.12.2009 GIVEN TO THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3..TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.12.2009. EXT.P4..TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.12.2009 GIVEN FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5..TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.12.2009 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6..TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.371/09 DATED 19.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4A..TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 19.12.2000. EXT.R4B..TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 29.1.2010 ISSUED BY SRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN (PURCHASER OF SCRAP) K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.3017 of 2010-B ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-- “i). to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the Ist and 2nd respondents to remove the unlawful obstruction caused by respondents 4 and 5 and their men in removing the scraps as per Ext.P1 from the premises of the company M/s.Rado Tyres, Kothamangalam. ii). to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the Ist and 2nd respondents to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner and his men for removing the scrap as per Ext.P1.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:--Petitioner along with two unemployed persons started a contract work to remove the scrap material from the premises of M/s.Rado Tyres. Respondents 4 and 5 are the office bearers of union. They are demanding Nokkucooli for the work done by the petitioners and his workers. Petitioner beg to say that petitioner is willing to engage the workers of WPC No.3017/2010 -2- respondents 4 and 5 for reasonable work at reasonable rate. Petitioner approached respondents 1 and 2 for protection. It is stated that on 15.12.2009 petitioner filed a complaint before the Assistant Labour Officer, Kothamangalam. It is stated that 3rd respondent issued notice to respondents 4 and 5 and they did not turn up. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent. In the counter affidavit inter alia it is stated that registered headload workers under the 4th respondent are entitled to do the loading and unloading work in the premises of Rado Tyres, Kothamangalam. The demand of Nookucooli is denied. It is stated that they are entitled to get work and wages in accordance with law. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 4th and 6th respondents and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to get the work done through the pool workers including the workers owing allegiance to the 4th respondent. But, he submits that the petitioner is not liable to pay anything more WPC No.3017/2010 -3- than what he is liable to pay in law. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent would submit that petitioner need only approach the local committee of the Board at Kothamangalam and that enough number of workers will be allotted from the pool and that the petitioner need pay only the charges which are fixed as per law. We record this submission and close the writ petition. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS