IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31729 of 2010(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- DR.G.VELAYUDHAN, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, ATTINGAL HOUSE, GG HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SRI.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.R.SRINATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,THEIURVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LAW AND ORDER), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 011. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. 5. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PARIS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 6. WORKING PRESIDENT, PRIVATE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU), MEDICAL COLLEGE UNIT, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. svs ...........2/-.... ...2... WP(C).No. 31729/2010(M) 7. GENERAL SECRETARY, GG HOSPITAL UNIT OF PRIVATE HOSPITAL WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC), MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. 8. GENERAL SECRETARY, PRIVATE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES SANGH (BMS), MEDICAL COLLEGE UNIT, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. * ADDL. R9 IMPLEADED 9. M/S. PARAGON HOSPITAL KERALA (P) LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. * ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06/01/2011 IN I.A. NO.15781/2010 IN WPC. NO.31729/2010. R1-5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R6, 7 BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR R8 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH R9 BY ADVS. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 31729/2010(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13/10/2010 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14/10/2010 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION DATED 15/10/2010 ISSUED TO SHRI.R.SUNDARAM, ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION DATED 15/10/2010 ISSUED TO SMT.V.REMANI, ANOTHER EMPLOYEE. P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17/10/2010 RESPONDENTS 6 TO 8 AND THE EMPLOYEES. P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16/10/2010 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17/10/2010 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/10/2010 SUBMITTED TO THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R7(a):COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. R7(b)COLLECTIVELY:COPY OF THE VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LABOUR OFFICERS. R7(c)COLLECTIVELY:COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TWO MEETINGS. R7(d):COPY OF A SAMPLE TERMINATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. R7(e):COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS)NO.174/2009 DATED 16/12/2009 NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT. WP(C).No. 31729/2010(M) R8(a):COPY OF NOTICE NO.1(4)23050/2010 DATED 14/10/2010 OF THE ALC (IR) R8(b):COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE CONCELLATION MEETING HELD ON 14/10/2010. R8(c):COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE CONCELLATION MEETING HELD ON 18/10/2010. R8(d):COPY OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION DATED 15/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 31729 of 2010-M ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 4 to oblige them to afford police protection to the petitioner against the illegal, contumacious and culpable conduct of respondents 6 to 8 and employees who are members of the said Associations. 2. According to the petitioner, he was the owner running the GG Hospital, Trivandrum. He had sold the hospital to the 9th respondent. The sale deed was executed on 16/1/10. According to the petitioner, notwithstanding the execution of the document of sale on 16/1/10, he continued to run the hospital till 14/10/10. On that day, according to the petitioner, he terminated the W.P.(C) No. 31729 of 2010 -: 2 :- services of all employees represented by respondents 6 to 8. On the basis of his arrangement with the 9th respondent, he is permitted to reside permanently in the hospital. According to the petitioner, the employees represented by respondents 6 to 8, though they have been paid all amounts which are legally due to them, are not accepting the transfer and are agitating for the enforcement of their assumed rights. An industrial dispute exists and admittedly conciliation proceedings are initiated by the 5th respondent. We are now informed that the 5th respondent/labour authorities have now submitted report under Sec.12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Government and action of the Government is awaited. The petitioner prays that he may be permitted to reside in the hospital as permitted by the 9th respondent without any let or hindrance from respondents 6 to 8 or workers under them. 3. The respondents have been served. They have entered appearance. The learned counsel for respondents 6 to 8 oppose the prayer vehemently. They submit that the petitioner is only a name lender to the 9th respondent with whom the contesting respondents have disputes. According to respondents 6 to 8, W.P.(C) No. 31729 of 2010 -: 3 :- after the sale deed was executed on 16/1/10 also the petitioner continued to be employed under the 9th respondent. They were working and their wages were being paid by the 9th respondent. There is no question of transfer of ownership or termination of employees consequent to such transfer. Presently in an attempt to defeat the rights of the employees who have put in long years of service as employees of the GG Hospital, the 9th respondent is trying to deny employment to them. There is an industrial dispute. Workmen are protesting. The petitioner is a name lender to the 9th respondent and is only attempting somehow to fight the battle on behalf of the 9th respondent. No blanket directions of police protection may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for respondents 6 to 8 submit that any appropriate direction to assure the continued peaceful residence of the petitioner in the premises may be issued. respondents 6 to 8 have no intention at all to indulge in any contumacious or culpable acts disturbing the peace and tranquility of the petitioner and his residence in the hospital. Interim directions were already issued. The scope of the W.P.(C) No. 31729 of 2010 -: 4 :- directions can be further enlarged even. Interim directions were issued on 15/10/10 and 1/11/10. The direction issued on 15/10/10 reads as follows: “There will be an interim order directing respondents 3 and 4 to grant protection to the life of the petitioner as against members of respondents 6 to 8 for a period of one week.” That direction was extended from time to time and it remains in force even now. Later on 1/11/10 the following directions were issued by the Bench: “The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner seeking protection for his attendants. There will be an interim order directing the respondents 3 and 4 to give protection to petitioner, 4 nursing attendants, two bystanders and Mr.Sabin Babu, his Chartered Accountant as against any obstruction or threat from the members of respondents 6 to 8 for a period of two weeks.” W.P.(C) No. 31729 of 2010 -: 5 :- This interim order also has been extended from time to time and is in force. The learned counsel for respondents 6 to 8 submit that the order can be further enlarged and it can be stipulated that respondents 6 to 8 shall not obstruct any visitor wanting to visit the petitioner in the hospital. We are satisfied that the interim orders in force can be further enlarged to permit any visitor to visit the petitioner without any obstruction. Respondents 6 to 8 agree to this course in view of the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the counsel was not able to visit the petitioner at his place of residence. 5. However, we find merit in the submission of respondents 6 to 8 that the petitioner may not be permitted to fight a battle on behalf of the 9th respondent. The 9th respondent has not come before Court, though as respondent he has been impleaded as additional 9th respondent. We are not satisfied that any direction in favour of the 9th respondent can or need be issued in this writ petition filed by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner can be taken care of and his interest can be adequately protected. But we agree with the learned counsel for respondents 6 to 8 that the petitioner need not be W.P.(C) No. 31729 of 2010 -: 6 :- permitted to fight a battle on behalf of the 9th respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the 9th respondent submits that the 9th respondent, though the owner of the hospital now, has not commenced work. The hospital has to be renovated for which the 9th respondent has sought the support and services of the petitioner herein. All the employees have been terminated by the petitioner and, in these circumstances, the 9th respondent wants the renovation work to be carried on by the petitioner. Obviously, the petitioner is not the one to manage the affairs of the hospital now. In this petition filed by the petitioner we do not propose to issue any directions in favour of the 9th respondent with whom the employees have an industrial dispute raised now and which is pending before the authorities. 7. This petition is, in these circumstances, allowed. The interim orders dated 15/10/10 and 1/11/10 shall continue to remain in force with the further direction that respondents 6 to 8 or their members shall not in any way cause any obstruction to the peaceful residence of the petitioner in the premises; nor shall any visitor to the petitioner be obstructed in any manner. 8. This petition is, in these circumstances, allowed to the W.P.(C) No. 31729 of 2010 -: 7 :- above extent. We make it clear that we have not intended to express any opinion on the question as to who was running the hospital from 16/1/10 to 14/10/10 (i.e., the petitioner or the 9th respondent). That question will have to be decided by appropriate authorities. We further clarify that we have not intended to place any fetter on the right of the 9th respondent to seek appropriate reliefs in respect of property sold to him by the petitioner. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge