IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 3119 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.VASU, AGED 44,S/O.THANKAPPAN, VISHNU AGENCY, NEARBY C.S.I. CHURCH, PERINGAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPEPRINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,OFFICE OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLCIE, BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, BALARAMAPURAM. 4. PREFULLACHANDRAN, PRESIDENT I.N.T.U.C. (I) PERINGAMMALA UNIT,KALLIYOOR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. BAIJU KUNJUVEETTUVILA, KAMARAJ NAGAR, NENNIYOOR NELLIVILA P.O. CONVENER, INTUC (I) PERINGAMMALA UNIT KALLIYOOR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ FOR R4,5 SRI.V.PRATHAPACHANDRAN FOR R4,5 SRI.SURAJ.S FOR R4,5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.3119/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF CONSIGNOR PERFORMA DATED 10.10.08. EXT.P2: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 18/1/2009 BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY POLICE TO THE OWNER OF ESTABLISHMENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 16/10/2009 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF INFORMATION DATED 1/3/2010 WHICH IS DIVULGED BY DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, UNDER R.T. ACT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R4A: COPY OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY L.BAIJU UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 BEFORE THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.R4B; COPY OF REPLY DATED 3/2/2009 GIVEN TO EXHIBIT R4A BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. EXT.R4C: COPY OF REPRESENTTION DATED 20/1/2007 SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 3119 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner, who is conducting business in pine poles, has approached this court claiming police protection for loading and unloading the pine poles in his establishment by engaging his own workers, from what is described as the acts of violence of persons under respondents 4 and 5 trade unions. According to the petitioner, the area is not one where the headload workers scheme applies. Counter affidavit has been filed by the unions to which reply affidavit is also filed. The contention raised by the unions is that the petitioner has been engaging workers affiliated to respondents 4 and 5 for very long period of time and that the petitioner's idea is to deny work to these workers. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.R.T.Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M.R.Hariraj learned counsel for the trade unions. Mr.Pradeep submitted that as the area is not one where the head load workers welfare scheme has been implemented, the members of respondents 4 and 5 are not WPC.No.3119/2009 2 entitled to insist that they should be engaged by the petitioner. Mr.Hariraj per contra would submit that this is a clear case of denial of employment to workers who are being engaged for quite some time. The Assistant Labour Officer has already initiated proceedings for conciliation and the intention of the petitioner is to steal a march over the respondents 4 and 5 on the strength of the police protection directions issued by this court. This may not be permitted, so submitted Mr.Hariraj. 3. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We notice that on considering this writ petition for admission this court on 29/1/2009 passed interim police protection as prayed for. Later, after hearing counsel for the trade unions, this court on 22/7/2010 clarified the above interim order and stated that the interim order granting police protection will not stand in the way of the statutory authorities under the Industrial laws exercising their statutory functions, duties and powers. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that the interim order granted by this court on 22/7/2010 can be made absolute and it can be clarified once again that the above WPC.No.3119/2009 3 interim order was not caused any prejudice to respondents 4 and 5 in the on going conciliation proceedings initiated by the Assistant Labour Officer. It is ordered and clarified accordingly and the writ petition is disposed of. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk