IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 27286 of 2008 (W) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER: M/S.K.V.JOSEPH & SONS, ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.J.KURIAKOSE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALAY. 2. CITU ANGAMALY AREA COMMITTEE, ANGAMALY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PILING & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WORKERS UNION, (INTUC), ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY MEKHALA COMMITTEE, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT. 4. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION WORKERS UNOIN (INTUC), ANAGAMALY MEKHALA COMMITTEE, REP.BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 5. BUILDING & ROAD WORKERS FEDERATION (INTUC), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE NO.60/257, AMBEDKAR COLONY ROAD, JUDGES AVENUE, KALOOR, KOCHI-17, REP.BY ITS DISTRICT PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 27286 of 2008 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of final agreement dated 01-07-2008. Ext.P2: True copy of affidavit executed on 27-02-2008. Ext.P3: True copy of Newspaper report regarding the stoppage of work published in the supplement of Mathrbhumi daily dated 02-09-2008. Ext.P4: True copy of the complaint dated 27-08-2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: Ext.R4(a): True copy of one such settlement in Aluva Taluk. // True copy // P.A. to Judge jes H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.27286 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of September 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.BASHEER, J. Petitioner is stated to be an “Engineering Contractor Firm”. Petitioner has been awarded the contract for construction of KSRTC Bus Terminal Complex at Angamaly on the strength of Ext.P1 agreement executed between the petitioner and the Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 2 to 5 and their men are causing obstruction to the construction work that is being carried out by his employees at the work site. Petitioner, therefore, prays for issue of a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction to respondent No.1 to provide adequate Police protection to him and his workmen for the implementation of Ext.P1 contract. 2. Respondents 2, 3 and 5 have not appeared either in person or through counsel though notice has been served on them. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4. In the said counter affidavit, it is inter alia alleged that the workers belonging to its Union are also working with the petitioner and, therefore, they have every right to negotiate with management for a fair settlement of service conditions of those workers. 3. Respondent No.4 has further stated that petitioner is attempting to engage “migrant workers who are prepared to work as bonded labourers”. According to respondent No.4 this practice would affect the employment rights of the workers in W.P.(C)No.27286 OF 2008 :: 2 :: the locality. We do not propose to deal with the above contention which in our view is totally alien or irrelevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not necessary to refer to the other averments made in the counter affidavit, since they are not essential for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition. 4. Admittedly, petitioner has been awarded the contract. His anxiety is to complete the work at the earliest. Petitioner has engaged workers belonging to the Unions of the local area also. Therefore, respondents 2 to 5 or their men and supporters have no justification to cause any obstruction at the work site. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the members of the Union will not cause any obstruction to the construction activity. The above submission is recorded. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to ensure adequate, effective and meaningful protection to the petitioner and its workmen to carry on the construction activity pursuant to Ext.P1 without any let or hindrance from respondents 2 to 5 or their workers. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes