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 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 27904 of 2009(G) -------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- NALKANAD COFFEE & PRODUCE COMPANY LTD., RIVERVIEW RUBBER ESTATE, ANAPPARA P.O., VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MARIA JACOB. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR SMT.K.N.RAJANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VITHURA POLICE STATION, VITHURA. 3. K.ABBAS, VITHURA AREA SECRETARY, THOTTAM THOZHILALEE UNION (CITU), SANGEETHA, KAVUVILA, VITHURA P.O. 4. B.SASI, VINOD VILASAM, MULLACHIRA, ANAPPARA P.O., VITHURA. 5. A.PURUSHOTHAMAN, GREESHMAM, CHAYAM, VITHURA P.O. 6. P.STEEPHAN, V.T.HOUSE, ANAPPARA P.O., VITHURA. 7. G.BALACHANDRAN, SUBASH BHAVAN, SASTHAMKAVU, VITHURA P.O. 8. T.ANIL KUMAR, KRISHNA BHAVAN, ANAPPARA P.O., VITHURA. W.P.(C).NO.27904 OF 2009 G 9. S.RAJU, SASTHAMPARA PUTHEN VEEDU, ANAPPARA P.O., VITHURA. 10. M.KUNHUMUHAMMAD, VAYALARIKATHU VEEDU, ANAPPARA P.O., VITHURA. 11. T.ASHOKAN, ATTARIKATHU VEEDU, ANAPPARA P.O., VITHURA. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM FOR R3 TO 11 SRI.DIPU.R FOR R3 TO 11 SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW FOR R3 TO 11 SRI.K.S.HARIDAS FOR R3 TO 11 SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR FOR R3 TO 11 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.27904 OF 2009 G PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.8.09. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.9.09. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.9.09 SUBMITTED TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF ESTATE WITH COPY TO DLO. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RUBBER BOARD TO THE PETITIONER DATED 26.11.2009. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PLANTATION INSPECTOR DATED 28.11.2009. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PLANTATION INSPECTOR DATED 14.12.2009. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENOR TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK ROLL AND PAY LIST FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER, 2009. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CONVENOR DATED 20.12.2009. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE UNION DATED 29.9.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.10.09 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO.27904 OF 2009 G --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th February, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows: “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding second respondent to afford adequate and effective police protection for smooth functioning of rubber tapping in the estate of the petitioner by name “Riverview Estate” from the threat and illegal activities of respondents 3 to 11 in the interest of justice.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a Private Limited Company, represented by its Managing Director. According to petitioner, it has got sixteen permanent labourers employed for rubber tapping and allied works. Respondents 4 to 11 are labourers employed in the Estate who belonged to CITU and the third respondent is the WPC.27904/09 G 2 Area Secretary of the Union. One Shri Balakrishnan Nair, who was a permanent labourer retired on 20.5.2009. Petitioner appointed one Shri D. Raju in his place and tapping of 600 rubber trees, earlier allotted to Shri Balakrishnan Nair, are allotted to the said Raju. It is stated that rubber trees are very old and slaughter tapping is started with respect to the said trees. It is stated that Shri D. Raju is not being permitted to conduct tapping on the ground that a person from their Union should be employed in the vacancy of Shri Balakrishnan Nair. They have no right to make such a demand, since the Company is entitled to appoint a person of their choice in the place of retired employee. It is on these allegations, that the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. This Court has passed an interim order to ensure that law and order is maintained. Further order was passed as per which the petitioner and the workers were directed to co-operate with the conciliation. There is another order passed to the effect that the petitioner must comply with the norms regarding WPC.27904/09 G 3 tapping fixed by the competent authority concerned. 4. A Counter Affidavit is filed. Therein, the case set up is as follows: The owner of the Estate was maintaining very good relationship with the workmen till he passed away. There are only about 7000 yielding rubber trees. For getting continuous work, one tapping employee should be allotted 900 rubber trees comprised in three blocks. There were altogether eighteen tapping workers and five field workers till 2008. 3000 trees were given for slaughter and at that time, six tapping workers were terminated. In addition to this, six workers, one tapper and one helper retired. Now, there remain only eleven tapping workers and four helpers. Thus, there is no sufficient work for the existing eleven tapping workers after the slaughtering of the trees. It is stated that 1000 trees were uprooted in inclement weather, reducing work for the existing employees. Then it was decided to give 600 more trees for slaughter tapping by directly engaging a new worker. Petitioner has approached the WPC.27904/09 G 4 Authorities and a conference is convened. A Reply Affidavit is filed. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 11 and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Rubber Board has clarified that there are no norms. He would submit further that when a permanent employee retires, the petitioner has every right to employ its own worker in his place, and that the Union has no right to obstruct. Learned counsel for the party respondents would submit that they have no objection if another person is appointed in the place of a permanent employ who retires, but there must be sufficient work. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there will be sufficient work. We record these submissions and direct that respondents 1 and 2 will provide adequate police protection against respondents 3 to 11, in case they oppose work being done by the person appointed in place of a retired employee, provided the petitioner provide sufficient work to the WPC.27904/09 G 5 employees. We also make it clear that the granting of this protection will be subject to the further condition that the petitioner will participate either personally or through a representative in the conciliation proceedings, in the next meeting scheduled to be held on 01.03.2010 and in any other adjourned meeting. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge