IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 27133 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ST.FRANCIS HOLLOW BRICKS, MUNNURPPILLY BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT.SOMI FRANCIS, X/624 (A) MUNNURPPILLY, KARUKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EZHATTUMUGHOM.P.O, BY ADV. SRI.A.VIJAYAKUMAR SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANKAMALAY. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANKAMALY. 3. SANTU.C.P, CHERADI HOUSE, SECRETARY, HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, MUNNURPPILLY UNIT, EZHUTTUMUGHAM. 4. SHAJI.P.S, PEECHATTIKAD HOUSE, SECRETARY, HEADLOAD AND GENERAL, WORKERS UNION (CITU), MUNNURPPILLY UNIT, EZHATTUMUGHAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.27133/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: LICENCE ISSUED BY THE KARUKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT DT.28.7.2008. EXT.P2: S.S.I REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE DIC ERNAKULAM DT.4.12.2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE S.I.OF POLICE ANKAMALY DT.28.8.2008. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27133 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is running a small hollow bricks manufacturing unit in Karukutty Grama Panchayat. The unloading of raw materials and loading of finished products are being done by the petitioner, her husband and two workmen. While so, four headload workers led by respondents 3 and 4 came to the petitioner's unit on 28.8.2008, claiming that they should be given the loading and unloading work in the petitioner's establishment. Raising that demand, they caused obstruction to the functioning of the unit. Though the petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint before the police, the police did not take any effective action. Hence, this writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that it is a labour dispute between the petitioner and the local headload workers. So, the police did not interfere. W.P.(C) No.27133/2008 2 3. Though notice was served on respondents 3 and 4, no one appeared for them. Normally, the petitioner should be conceded freedom to engage workmen of her choice to do various works in her establishment. If respondents 3 and 4 have any special right to claim any work, they may establish it before the statutory forum. If respondents 3 and 4 or their supporters cause any obstruction to the loading and unloading of the petitioner's unit, she may inform the 2nd respondent. In that event, the said respondent shall remove the obstruction. But this direction will not affect the rights, if any, of the workers to claim work in her establishment. They may move the statutory forum and establish their right. In that event, the direction granted for police protection will be subject to such orders of the statutory authority. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps