IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 24396 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHERLY GEORGE, W/O. GEORGE CHERIAN, ANI & COMPANY, RING ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT WORKERS FEDERATION (UNREGISTERED) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MUNDUKOTTACKAL SURENDRAN, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. MUNDUKOTTACKAL SURENDRAN, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. ROBIN JOHN, PUTHUVEL HOUSE, VAZHAMUTTOM.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 7. KRISHNANKUTTY, KOLLAN PADINJARETHIL, VALAMCHOZHY, MALLASSERY,PATHANAMTHITTA. 8. REGHUNATHAN UNNITHAN, PERUMPALLIL ILLATHU HOUSE, ANGADICKAL.P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA. WP(C).No. 24396 of 2011(Y) 9. RAJAPPAN, RAHU BHAVAN, MUNDUKOTTACKAL.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. (*)ADDL.R10. RAJU JOHN, CHARIVUKALAYIL HOUSE, MUNDUKOTTAKKAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA (*)ADDL.R11. T.L.HARIKRISHNAN, THENIRIKKUMPURAYIL HOUSE, OMALLOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA (*)ADDL.R12. JAYAN G., PULINIKUNNATHIL HOUSE, PARAYANALI, OMALLOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA (*)ADDL.R13. ANIL SAKKAYI, KOCHETHU MURUPPEL HOUSE, OONNUKAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA (*)ADDL.R14. M.SAJI, CHARUVILA VEEDU, MYLOM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA (*)ADDL.R15 SELVAN, K.S.NIVAS, KAPPIL EAST P.O., KRISHNAPURAM, KAYAMKULAM. [(*) ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NOS.10 TO 15 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON I.A.NO.15553/2011 DATED 28/09/2010] ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN FOR R6-9 SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN FOR R6-9 SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY FOR R6-9 SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR FOR R6-9 SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR FOR R6-9 SMT.M.A.RUXANA FOR R6-9 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) FOR ADDL 10 TO 15 SRI.A.R.DILEEP FOR ADDL 10 TO 15 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24396 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-02-2011. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08-05-2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26-05-2011 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SETTLEMENT MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.LR 1643/11 DATED 30-5-2011. EXT.P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY BEARING NO. B (2) 11311/2011 DATED 08-6-2011. EXT.P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.694/DPN/11/PTA DATED 28-6-2011. EXT.P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.LR/3210/11 DATED 27/8/2011. EXT.P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY RECEIPT BEARING NO.875/DPN/11/PTA DATED 05-9- 2011. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05-09-2011. EXT.P10 TRUE COPYOF THE LETTER DATED 13/09/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11(a) TRUE COPY OF WAGE REGISTER IN RESPECT OF RAJU JOHN EXT.P11(b) TRUE COPY OF WAGE REGISTER IN RESPECT OF HARIKRISHNAN EXT.P11(c) TRUE COPY OF WAGE REGISTER IN RESPECT OF ANIL S.SAKAI EXT.P11(d) TRUE COPY OF WAGE REGISTER IN RESPECT OF SAJY M EXT.P11(e) TRUE COPY OF WAGE REGISTER IN RESPECT OF JAYAN G. EXT.P11(f) TRUE COPY OF WAGE REGISTER IN RESPECT OF SHELVAN EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.7/9/2011 BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R8(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONCILIATION PETITION BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.R8(b) PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED ON 11/09/2011 EXT.R8(c) PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 11/09/2011 EXT.R8(d) PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.11/9/11 AGAINST THE VIOLATION OF SETTLEMENT \\True copy// P.A to Judge PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 24396 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Abduld Rehim,J. Petitioner is running a Hardware shop located on the Ring Road at Pathanamthitta, under the name and style of 'Ani & Co.' It is stated that, the workers attached to the petitioner's shop abruptly abstained from work, on issuing Ext.P1 notice by the 4th respondent trade union. Petitioner alleges that the striking workers started threatening the petitioner and the willing employees and also created problem to the functioning of the shop by misbehaving to the customers. It is stated that a conciliation conference was convened by the 3rd respondent on the basis of an industrial dispute raised and a settlement was arrived. But in violation of the settlement arrived as per Ext.P4, now the respondents 6 to 9 are raising untenable demands. With respect to the physical obstructions and mischief caused, the petitioner submitted complaint before the 2nd respondent, as per Ext.P8. Since no action was taken on the basis of such WP(C) .24396/2011 2 complaint, this writ petition is filed seeking direction to render adequate and effective protection . 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 6 to 9 it is contended that there exists a dispute with respect to the terms and conditions of employment,especially with respect to payment of Bonus. It is further stated that the petitioner had now denied employment to 14 workers, including respondents 6 to 9 and the workers have raised further dispute before the 3rd respondent, as evidenced from Ext. R8(a). It is also stated that the 4th respondent union representing the workers is now pursuing the matter before the labour authority concerned. It is the contention that the petitioner is not co- operating with the conciliation proceedings and that she had ultimately denied employment to six workers. 3. Respondents 10 to 15 entered appearance through Advocate George Varghese Perumpallykuttyil. It is stated that eventhough those respondents were also parties to the dispute raised before the labour authorities, they have re-joined duty from September 20th onwards and that they are now continuing in the shop. It is stated that they are not creating any WP(C) .24396/2011 3 obstructions or hindrance to the business activities of the petitioner. 4. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 6.9.2011, an interim direction was issued by this court to afford police protection to the petitioner, her willing workers and for ingress and egress to the shop, and also for conduct of smooth business activity. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that based on the interim order, protection was afforded and the business is conducted in a smooth manner. It is further stated that the petitioner is intending to initiate disciplinary actions against certain workers who are not co- operating. 5. We notice that there exists a labour dispute between the petitioner and some of her workers. The 4th respondent union or respondents 6 to 9 who are pursuing such dispute before the appropriate labour authority are at liberty to take all legal measures to redress their grievances. However, even assuming that there is illegal denial of employment, such workers are not entitled to create any physical obstruction in the shop or to create any obstruction to the smooth conduct of WP(C) .24396/2011 4 business. 6. Therefore while reserving liberty to the contesting respondents as well as the union representing those workers to pursue the legal remedies, we confirm the interim order directing the 2nd respondent to afford protection in its strict terms. 7. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the labour dispute. So also it is made clear that we have not restrained the petitioner from taking any disciplinary action against any of the workers. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .24396/2011 5