IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9243 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K. BIJU, KEENATHU VEEDU, NAGAROOR, ALTHARAMOODU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. SRI. SAJU, DAS VILLA, VELLAMKOLLI DESOM, NAGAROOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SRI. BIJU, SHAJI NIVAS, PEDIKULAM, KARETTU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SRI. SAJEEV, VISHNU BHAVAN, OORALIKONAM DESOM, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA, R5 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.9243/2010-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REGN. CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER'S VEHICLE KL-16/D-7051. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER VALID FROM 18/02/2010 TO 09/03/2010. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER VALID FROM 10/03/2010 TO 29/03/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 27/02/2010. EXT.P.4.A: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 27/02/2010. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 03/03/2010. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 03/03/2010. EXT.P.6.A: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 04/03/2010. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE R.3. DTD. 03/03/2010. EXT.P.7.A: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R.3. DTD. 04/03/2010. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 09/03/2010. EXT.P.8.A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 09/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 09/03/2010. EXT.P.9.A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 09/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE R.3. DTD. 09/03/2010. EXT.P.10.A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 11/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR FIRST INSTALMENT OF LOAN, ISSUED BY THE SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24/09/2007. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR LAST INSTALMENT OF LOAN, ISSUED BY THE SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20/01/2010. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 29/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE RETURN SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, TRIVANDRUM DATED 03/12/2010. W.P.(C). NO.9243/2010-E: EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR CONTRIBUTION ISSUED BY THE KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WELFARE FUND BOARD, TRIVANDRUM DATED 05/11/2010. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE TRIP SHEET OF THE PETITIONER'S BUS KL-16/D-7051 DATED 30/01/2010. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE TRIP SHEET OF THE PETITIONER'S BUS KL-16/D-7051 DATED 31/01/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS. EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DIARY DATED NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Civil) No.9243 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 Judgment Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this court with this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of directions for respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to operate stage carriage No.KL-16/D-7051 on the route kadakkal- Attingal without any obstruction or interference by respondents 4 to 6. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the registered owner of the said vehicle. He has the stage carriage permit to operate the vehicle in his name. He has his own employees to run the vehicle also. Respondents 4 to 6, according to the petitioner, have nothing to do with the petitioner's vehicle. They are employees of one Rajeev who is the owner and permit holder in respect of another vehicle No.KL-16/D-7657. Respondents 4 to 6 who have nothing to do with the petitioner and petitioner's vehicle are illegally obstructing the operation of the service of the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has come to this court. WPC 9243/2010 2 3. This writ petition was admitted on 19.3.2010. On 23.3.2010 interim directions were issued to respondents 1 to 3 “to give adequate police protection for the willing workers of the petitioner to ply his vehicle KL-16/D-7051 on the route Kadakkal- Attingal as per the permit as against respondents 4 to 6”. This interim direction which was initially for a period of 10 days has been extended from time to time. 4. Respondents 5 and 6 have entered appearance. They have filed counter affidavit. They contend that it is incorrect to say that respondents 5 and 6 are not employees in the vehicle KL-16/D-7051 operating on the route Kadakkal-Attingal. It is true that this bus and the permit stand in the name of the petitioner herein, but really and actually the petitioner is only a name lender. A close relative of the petitioner herein by name Rajeev is really in control of the situation. He has two vehicles, KL-16/D- 7051 and KL-16/D-7657 referred above. To deny benefits to the workers, the records were maintained in the name of two different individuals. The said Rajeev is not available in India and is employed abroad. One Sadanandan, the father of said Rajeev is actually carrying on the management of both vehicles together. WPC 9243/2010 3 The petitioner and the said Rajeev and Sadanandan are resorting to unfair labour practice to deny legitimate dues and benefits to the employees in the two vehicles. The party respondents have no intention to obstruct the running of the vehicle KL-16/D-7051. They only want to raise peaceful protest. They want to raise an industrial dispute. Rights of the employees are trammelled upon and benefits are not being paid to the employees. Already the labour authorities have been moved. But the petitioner is not co- operating with the labour authorities. In these circumstances, the constitutional powers under Article 226 cannot be invoked in favour of the petitioner herein. This petition may be dismissed and the interim order may be vacated, submits the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6. 5. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that there is a labour dispute between the parties and the respective contentions are as indicated above. There is no obstruction to the running of the vehicle. Now necessary protection is being afforded in the light of the interim order. If there will be any obstruction, necessary police protection shall be afforded without any prejudice to the rights of the employees to WPC 9243/2010 4 raise the industrial dispute and complain about the alleged unfair labour practice and victimization by the employer of the two vehicles against the employees including respondents 5 and 6. 6. We record the submission made on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 that they shall not obstruct the plying of the vehicle. We make it clear that we have not intended to express any opinion on merits about the labour dispute raised by the parties. It shall be open to the parties to get their disputes resolved in accordance with law. We further make it clear that we have not intended in any manner to prevent the rights of the employees including respondents 5 and 6 to demonstrate peacefully demanding redressal of their grievances as employees. In the light of the undertaking by respondents 5 and 6 that the peaceful plying of the vehicle shall not be obstructed and in the light of the undertaking by respondents 1 to 3 that if there is obstruction, necessary police protection shall be afforded, we are satisfied no further directions are necessary. In the light of the said undertaking given, we do not want to invoke our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and issue any specific directions. We repeat that we have not intended to express any opinion on WPC 9243/2010 5 merits about the contentions of the rival sides about the stand taken by them in the labour dispute. Documents have been produced in respect of the rival contentions. We are carefully avoiding any detailed reference to them lest it may prejudice the interest of the either parties. 7. This writ petition in these circumstances dismissed recording the above undertaking. R.BASANT, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. srd WPC 9243/2010 6