IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 209 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- L.SIVANANDAN, PROPRIETOR, MAHARAJA SUPER MARKET, DURBAR HALL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 016. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. VANIJYA VYAVASAYA MAZDOOR SABHA (BMS), REGISTER NO.461/86, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY K.V.MADHUKUMAR. 4. K.V.MADHUKUMAR, GENERAL SECRETARY, VANIJYA VYAVASAYA MAZDOOR SABHA (BMS), I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682 018. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.K.V.BIJU SRI.T.V.VINU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.209 OF 2010: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.2009. EXT.P2A.TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ACCEPTING EXT.P2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4A.TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER TO THE DLO, ERNAKULAM DATED 1.10.2009. EXT.R4B.TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 5.10.2009. EXT.R4C.TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER TO THE DLO, ERNAKULAM DATED 7.10.2009. EXT.R4D.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF TOKEN STRIKE DATED 21.10.2009 GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.209 of 2010-A ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows: “B. to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner to carry on business as is being done under the name and style Maharaja Super Market at Durbar Hall Road in Ernakulam without any sort of obstruction or interference by respondents 3 and 4, their supporters or associates; C. to issue a writ of mandamus prohibiting respondents 3 and 4 and their supporters from causing any bodily harm to the petitioner his employees and customers or obstructing their entry and exist to and from the petitioner's textile shop Maharaja Super Market, at Durbar Hall Road in Ernakulam.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:-- Petitioner is conducting a textile shop. Respondent No.3 is the Trade Union. Respondent No.4 is the General Secretary of the 3rd respondent Union. They demand WPC 209/2010 -2- reinstatement of two former employees of the petitioner. Conciliation proceeding is pending, it is stated. The 3rd respondent declared illegal strike. The workers of the petitioner did not participate in the strike. But, respondents 3 and 4 and their supporters are obstructing the entry of the employees from 19.12.2009. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 3 and 4. They would inter alia state as follows:-- Out of 50 employees working in the petitioner's establishment, 11 employees are resident Keralites and the remaining workers are neighbour workers. The employees of the petitioner's establishment were denied statutory benefits like provident fund, ESI etc. None of them have been enrolled in Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Workers Welfare Fund and that no pay slip is issued to any of the employees. It is stated that they sought to agitate the matter when two workers were denied work. 4. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 that on account of the aforesaid facts WPC 209/2010 -3- they are only carrying out peaceful agitation and the matter is pending before the authorities and they would submit that they would not obstruct the petitioner. 5. Having regard to the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: The interim order is made absolute. However, we make it clear that it will be open to respondents 3 and 4 and the members of the 3rd respondent to continue with any agitation on a peaceful basis without causing any obstruction and also to pursue their remedies before statutory authorities. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS