IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21047 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.M. MATHEW, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, CONTINENTAL CARDAMAM ESTATE, MANJAPETTY POST, IDUKKI DIST. 2. MARY MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW, DO...DO.. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMKANDAM. 4. THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, NEDUMKANDAM, 5. SRIMANDIRAM SASIKUMAR, HIGHRANGE PLANTATION EMPLOYEES UNION (INTUC), NEDUMKANDAM. 6. SHAJU THOMAS, MEELEPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJAPETTY, NEDUMKANDAM POST. ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM FOR R5-6 SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR) FOR R5-6 GP MR.P A SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 21047/09 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE R3 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.9.7.2009 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.11.7.2009 BY FIRST PETITION TO R6 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO PALANI AMMAL EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.11.7.2009 BY FIRST PETITIONER EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF R4 DT.22.7.2009 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.23.7.2009 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.25.7.2009 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MUSTER ROLL OF THE EMPLOYEES OF FIRST PETITIONER EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MUSTER ROLL OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE 2ND PETITIONER TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO.21047 OF 2009-A -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 6th August 2009 Judgment RAMAN, J. This court, by interim order dated 29.07.2009, recorded the undertaking given by the party respondents that 11 workers are ready and willing to do the work and that any dispute regarding the right to do the work by any workmen in excess of the 11 workmen, will be decided in accordance with law by the adjudicating authority. The petitioners have now filed IA No.9808/09 praying for an interim order to afford protection to them to engage enough number of casual employees after engaging the 11 permanent workers referred to in Exts.P10 and P11. 2. Heard both sides. There is a dispute as to whether there are 16 permanent workers attached to the estate or only 11. Over and above the 11 permanent workers, five more casual WP(C) 21047/09 2 workers are to be engaged as of right. This is a dispute, which cannot be resolved in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, pending resolution of the dispute, there cannot be any physical obstruction caused to the work being carried out in the estate. In the circumstances, we direct the 4th respondent to conciliate in the dispute and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law as early as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending such conciliation, there will be a direction that the petitioner shall engage the 11 permanent workers as referred in Exts.P10 and P11. Even though the petitioners say that they require another 15 to 20 casual labourers, since the dispute with regard to five casual workers is being referred to the 4th respondent for his decision, we permit the petitioners to engage 10 additional workers over and above the 11 permanent workers. Thereafter, subject to the decision of the 4th respondent, it is open to the parties to engage such of WP(C) 21047/09 3 those workers who are found entitled to do the work. If there is any obstruction, the police shall give necessary protection to the petitioners and their workers. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WP(C) 21047/09 4