IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5288 of 2011(I) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- D.RAVICHANDRAN,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.DANDAPANI,EASWARI NILAYAM HOUSE,PROPRIETOR, RAVICHANDRA CEMENT WORKS,KALLIYANAPETTA, KANNIMARI(PO),CHITTUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH SRI.K.K.PREMALAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD,PIN-678001. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD,PIN-678001. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,PUTHUNAGARAM POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-678001. 4. PALAKKAD DISTRICT ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES MAZDOOR SANGAM,B.M.S.OFFICE, HARIKKARA STREET,PALAKKAD,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,K.SUDHAKARAN-678001. 5. V.SAHADEVAN,KUPPAMPULLY HOUSE, PANAYOOR,ATHIKODE.P.O.678552. 6. K.VISWANATHAN,NAVILAMTHODU,MEENKARA.P.O, MUTHALAMADA.P.O,CHITTUR-678507. 7. A.DASAN,MANAMKUTHY VEEDU,MAMPALLAM, MUTHALAMADA.P.O,CHITTUR-678507. 8. C.MURUGAN,MANIYATTUKULAMBU HOUSE, VILAYODI.P.O,678103. 9. K.SIVAN,KIZHAKKE COLONY,KUTTIPPALLAM, THEKKEDESAM.P.O,678553. 10. S.SREEJITH,KAVILPARAMBU HOUSE, KIZHAKKANCHERYKAVU,KALLAKKADU.P.O, PALAKKAD-678015. 11. G.RIJUMON,CHENGARATHU HOUSE,CHANDURUTHI, KODUVAYOOR,PALAKKAD-678501. 12. VIJAYAN.C,KOOTALAVEEDU,ERALAMPULLI, VILAYODI.P.O,PALAKKAD-678103. 13. R.RENGASWAMY,PALAYANGADU,OLASSERY.P.O, PALAKKAD-678551. 14. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HOME,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. ADV. SRI .BINOY VASUDEVAN FOR R4-8,11-13 SMT.P.G.BABITHA FOR R4-8 & R11-13 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE FACTORY LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER'S UNIT EXT.P2: -DO- OF THE SALES TAX REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER'S BROTHERS UNIT EXT.P3: -DO- OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED 9-11-2010 EXT.P4: -DO- OF THE LETTER DT. 3-1-2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P5: -DO- OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONER DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P6: -DO- OF THE NOTICE DT. 22-1-2011 OF THE DLO PALAKKAD EXT.P7: -DO- OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 29-1-2011 SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER EXT.P8: -DO- OF THE REPLY DT. 3-12-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE SAID UNIT EXT.P9: -DO- OF THE ORDER DT. 1-2-2011 IN W.P(C) NO: 2523 OF 2011 EXT.P10: -DO- OF THE BILL DT. 19-2-2011 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE KRISHNAN EXT.P11: -DO- OF THE BILL ISSUED IN THE NAME OF RAMESH EXT.P12: -DO- OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 21-2-2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R4A: -DO- OF THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER ON 2-11-2010 EXT.R4B: -DO- OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER EXT.R4C: -DO- OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER EXT.R4D: -DO- OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER jj /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 5288 OF 2011 I ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st March, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner against alleged illegal, contumacious and culpable conduct of fourth respondent, a trade union and respondents 5 to 13 who are workers represented by the fourth respondent. 2. According to the petitioner he runs the industrial activity of making concrete door and window structures. He has three units. His brother has one. According to him separate employees are engaged by each unit. The unit which runs at Kaliyanapetta-Chittoor as Ravichandra Cement Works has no connection with the other units run elsewhere by him or his brothers. There have been disputes between the employer and the workmen of these units. There were occasions when the petitioner along with his brothers had to come before this Court seeking police protection. In the first of these petitions parties WPC 5288/2011 2 were referred for conciliation and the dispute was settled under Ext.P3 memorandum of settlement. But disharmony continued and disputes arose even subsequently. This obliged the petitioner along with another brother of his to come to this Court seeking police protection again and the said petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment rendered by this Court. According to the petitioner the ire of the workmen is turned against the Kaliyanapetta unit – Ravichandra Cement Works. Respondents 5 to 9 are employees of the Perinthalmanna unit and respondents 10 to 13 are employees of the petitioner's brother's unit at Kadamgode unit. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 4 to 13 are illegally obstructing the work of his unit – Ravichandra Cement Works. He has no dispute whatsoever with the employees of Ravichandra Cement Works. They are willing to work. They are being illegally obstructed by respondents 4 to 13. Finished products are available in the establishment. They have to be removed. The petitioner is not being permitted to remove the finished products and deliver the same to customers who have placed orders. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner seeks issue of directions under Art.226. WPC 5288/2011 3 3. Respondents 4 to 13 have entered appearance through counsel. They have a totally different version to advance. According to them it is not a case of separate employees being established in each unit. At the convenience of the petitioner and his brothers employees used to be shifted from one unit to the other. Even though Ext.P3 settlement was reached there has been illegal back tracking from that agreement. Wages were illegally reduced and it is hence that further disputes have arisen even after Ext.P3 agreement. According to respondents 4 to 13 the workmen are not indulging in any contumacious or culpable conduct. They have a grievance that the petitioner is not co-operating with the conciliation by competent authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act. Appropriate directions may be issued to the petitioner to co-operate and take part in the conciliation proceedings initiated by the labour authorities. Respondents 4 to 13 undertake that they shall not indulge in any contumacious or culpable conduct. They shall not obstruct the ingress and egress of willing workers. They shall not obstruct the removal of finished products. In these circumstances no directions are liable to be issued under Art.226 submits the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 13. However, learned WPC 5288/2011 4 counsel submits that it may be insisted by the court that the petitioner co-operates and does take part in proceedings for conciliation initiated by competent authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to take part in the conciliation proceedings initiated by the officials under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner shall co-operate and take part in the conciliation proceedings. 5. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that the police shall afford protection for the petitioner if the undertaking of respondents 4 to 13 that they shall not obstruct the removal of finished products from the establishment and shall not obstruct willing workers from working in the establishment is breached. 6. Having considered all the relevant circumstances we are satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued under Art.226 of the Constitution. 7. In the result; a) This petition is allowed. b) We accept the undertaking of the petitioner that he shall take part in conciliation proceedings initiated by the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act. WPC 5288/2011 5 c) We accept the undertaking of respondents 4 to 13 that removal of finished products from the Ravichandra Cement Works shall not be obstructed and that ingress and egress of the willing workers in the unit of the petitioner at Kaliyanapetta shall not be obstructed. If there be any violation of this undertaking respondents 1 to 3 shall afford necessary protection for the petitioner. d) We make it clear that this judgment shall not in any way fetter the rights of respondents 4 to 13 to demonstrate peacefully and agitate for the redressal of their grievances in front of the establishment of the petitioner subject of course to the condition that ingress and egress of willing workers and customers shall not be obstructed. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 5288/2011 6