IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32983 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RAJENDRAN PILLAI, S/O.ANANDAN PILLAI, RAJA VILASAM, ANCHAL, YEROOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR - 691305. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR - 691305. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNINKODE POLICE STATION, KUNNINKODE - 691604. 4. INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, SUNILKUMAR, SARADHA SADANAM, ELAMPALLOOR, KOTTAVATTAM, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691322. 5. KERALA TRADE UNION CONGRESS (B) REPRESENTED BY GOPINATHA PILLIA, MAVILA KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, ELAMPALLOOR, KOTTAVATTAM, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691322. 6. ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PRASAD, AKHIL NIVAS, ELAMPALLOOR, KOTTAVATTAM, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691322. 7. CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNION (CITU) REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, SASIDHARAN, A.B.SADANAM, ELAMPALLOOR, KOTTAVATTAM, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691322. 8. HMS (HINDUSTAN MAZDOOR SANGH) REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, SADANANDHAN, A AJITH BHAVAN, ELAMPALLOOR, KOTTAVATTAM, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691322. 9. CITU (CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS) REPRESENTED BY MOHAN PILLAI, LEKSHMI NIVAS, CHAKKUVARAKKAL, KUNNUKODE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK - 691604. 10. AITUC (ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS) REPRESENTED BY BHASKARAN, SUDHI BHAVAN, CHAKKUVARAKKAL, KUNNUKODE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK - 691604. 11. BMS (BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH) REPRESENTED BY BIJU, SAJI BHAVAN, CHAKKUVARAKKAL, KUNNUKODE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK - 691604. ADDL.R12. RAHIM RAWTHER, S/O.S UMMAR KANNA RAWTHER CHATHINAKMUZHI HOUSE CHAKKUVARAKKAL VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. ADDL.R12 IS IMPLEADED SUOP MOTU VIDE ORDER DATED 14/12/2011. ADDL.R13. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, kOTTARAKKARA. ADDL.R13 IS IMPLEADD SUOS MOTU AS PER ORDER DATED 21/12/2011 R1 TO 3 BY GOVT. PELADER MR. T.P. SAJID ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR FOR R9 & 11 SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE FOR R4-8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TUE COPY FO THE AGREEMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 19/8/2009. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO RAHIM RAWTHER WITH BEENA DATED 19/8/2009. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY FO THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3/12/20011 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPODNENT. RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE ks. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ===================== W.P.(C)NO. 32983 OF 2011 ===================== JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The petitioner is seeking police protection for slaughter tapping and also for cutting and removal of slaughter tapped rubber trees standing upon the rubber estate mentioned in Ext.P1 agreement. According to the petitioner, he is bound on the terms of Ext.P1 to complete the work and cut and remove all the trees by 31/12/2011. He alleges that on account of the rivalry between the various Union operating in the area, i.e. respondents 4 to 8 on one side and respondents 9 to 11 on the other is unable to carry out the work. Hence this writ petition seeking police protection has been filed 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents- Unions. The contention raised by respondents 4 to 8 is that WPC 32983/2011 -2- the rubber estate is situated in Gandhigram Ward of Chakkuvarakkal village and it is the members of those Unions who are entitled to do the work in the area. Respondents 9 to 11 belong to another area, i.e. Chakkuvarakkal Ward and they are not entitled to claim the work. The contention raised by respondents 9 to 11 is that the area where the rubber estate is situated falls within the area allotted to them. They have been working in this area and they are to be given the work. 3. We have heard the submissions of Mr.B. Krishnamani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Alexander George, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8, Mr.K.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 9 to 11 and Mr.T.P.Sajid, learned Senior Government Pleader. Mr.Sajid submitted that in this case there is inter Union rivalry and additional 13th respondent is conciliating the issue. The Senior Government Pleader Mr.Sajid requested that additional respondent No.13 be directed to expedite WPC 32983/2011 -3- the matter so that the Unions can abide by the decision taken by the Assistant Labour Officer. Mr.B. Krishnamani submitted that as the petitioner is bound to complete the work by 31/12/2011 direction may be given to permit him to engage the workers of his choice and honour his commitments under Ext.P1. This can be done subject to the outcome of the conciliation proceedings. Mr.Alexander George, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8 submitted that the contentions raised by respondents 9 to 11 are without basis. Learned counsel for respondents 9 to 11 submitted that the members of those Unions also should be given work. During the course of submissions, Mr.Alexander George pointed out that the petitioner cannot have even going by Ext.P1 any right to cut and remove the trees. It is Rahim Rawther, respondent No.12, who has been given the work. The response of Mr.Krishnamani to the above submission is that the arguments are based on some mistake which has crept into Ext.P1. It is pointed out WPC 32983/2011 -4- that Rahim Rawther has not come forward to resist the prayers in this petition despite service of notice by special messenger. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the various submissions made at the Bar. We have considered the rival pleadings raised by the parties. Prima facie, it appears to us that members of respondents 4 to 8 Union are entitled to be engaged for carrying out the work in Ext.P1. The question whether the members of respondents 9 to 11 are also entitled to be engaged to the work carried out in the disputed area is an issue to be decided by the additional 13th respondent. We direct the additional 13th respondent to expedite the conciliation proceedings and to take a decision at the earliest, if possible within a week of receiving a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile subject to the decision to be taken by the additional 13th respondent, which would be binding on all the Unions, we direct respondents 2 and 3 to render adequate protection to WPC 32983/2011 -5- the petitioner for cutting and removal of rubber trees and also for slaughter tapping in the rubber trees by engaging the workers belonging to respondents 4 to 8. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE 21.12.2011 K. HARILAL, JUDGE ks.