IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 25241 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMESH J.SHAH, MANAGING PARTNER, PANKAJ CHEMICALS, 18/35, THOPPUMPADY, COCHIN-682 005. BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND K.BHARATHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.C.P.KUNJHIKANNAN SRI.S.K.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, COCHIN-6. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-6. 4. THE HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU), CITU OFFICE, PANAYAPPILLY, MATTANCHERY, COCHIN-2, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY & POOL LEADER. ADDL.R5. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD SRI.K.V.ARUN KUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T.K.VIPINDAS (ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09/09/2010 IN I.A.NO.12363/2010] THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25241 of 2010 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1(a) TRUE COPY OF MUSTER ROLL OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P1(b) TRUE COPY OF MUSTER ROLL OF THE PETITIONER'S SISTER CONCERN EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF INVOICE DATED 30/07/2010 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10/08/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE K.M.JOSEPH & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.25241/2010-E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph,J. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: “i. direct respondents 1 to 3 to render immediate police protection to the petitioner, his staff and workers to enable them to unload the machine for wrapping the manufactured soap tablet, Wrapper 3000 T, Machine No.20100709 with Chassis No.833 from the truck transporting the said equipment to the petitioner's factory and to ensure that the members of the 4th respondent Union do not in any way obstruct such unloading and transport of this machinery inside the petitioner's factory; ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to grant appropriate and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, his staff and workers from any act or acts of the members of the 4th respondent Union.” W.P.(C). No.25241/2010 -:2:- 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:- The petitioner is the Managing Partner of a partnership firm, which manufactures toilet soaps, cosmetic soaps like sandal, herbal etc.. The firm purchased machinery for wrapping the manufactured soap tablets from a company in Punjab. It is highly sophisticated piece of equipment and has to keep safe from any rough treatment. The workers of the petitioner's firm are familiar with loading and unloading operations using chain block with a tripod stand used regularly for such manual loading and unloading. The petitioner has approached this Court complaining of obstruction by members of the fourth respondent-Union. 3. This Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. On going through the pleadings and after hearing the submissions made at the Bar we are of the opinion that as an interim measure, but without prejudice to the right if any of the 4th respondent to have the unloading work done, the petitioner should be permitted to unload the machinery described in W.P.(C). No.25241/2010 -:3:- the writ petition by engaging his own workers without interference from the members of the 4th respondent trade union. The 3rd respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Palluruthy, shall, in the event of any obstruction being caused to such unloading by the petitioner's own workers at the instance of the 4th respondent or any other person or body of persons, afford adequate police protection to the petitioner to do the unloading work. 3. The petitioner shall take steps to implead the Labour Officer having jurisdiction over the area for the purpose of deciding the entitlement of the 4th respondent for doing the loading/unloading work. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the event of the dispute resolving authority deciding the dispute in favour of the 4th respondent the wages which the members of the 4th respondent Union were entitled to receive will be paid by the petitioner.” 4. Today when the matter came up, we heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent and the learned Government Pleader. W.P.(C). No.25241/2010 -:4:- Having regard to the order already passed and also the fact that the unloading has already been done, we feel that it is a fit case where the dispute as to whether the petitioner could employ his own workers to do the unloading works should be resolved by the additional fifth respondent with notice to the parties. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition as follows:- The additional fifth respondent will consider the question with notice to the petitioner and the fourth respondent and take a decision in the matter within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment. If the dispute is resolved in favour of the fourth respondent, the wages which the members of the fourth respondent Union are entitled to be received shall be paid by the petitioner. (K.M.Joseph, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms