IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38301 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. MINAS SILK COLLECTIONS, TIRUR. 2. THE MANAGING PARTNER, MINAS SILK COLLECTIONS, O.P. SOOPY, TARIF BAZAR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.N.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.C.DILIP. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. RZAQ.K., KUNNAKKATTU HOUSE, TIRUR SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT SHOPS & COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOYEES UNION, C.I.T.U,TIRUR. 4. ABDUL MAJEED, KERALA SHOPS& COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT LABOUR CONGRESS, I.N.T,U.C,TIRUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL, R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.MAJEED, SRI.K.H.ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.38301/2008-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DTD. 28/11/2005. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE TIRUR MUNICIPALITY DTD. 20/11/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 15/12/2008 SENT TO THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE R.3, DTD. 16/12/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE R.4. DTD. 16/12/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE P.2. BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2, DTD. 20/12/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. -------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.38301 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 12th January, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J . Contention of the petitioners is that 15 employees in the shop were absenting themselves from duty for a long time. They filed a complaint before the Assistant Labour Officer on 15.12.2008 alleging that the 15 persons who were alleged to be in employment from 1 ½ years to 3 years were not allowed to work. According to the petitioners, the members of the respondent unions are threatening the management and their lives and properties are in danger. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for respondents 3 and 4 that those workers are ready and willing to work, but, they were denied work because they wanted to be included under the Statutory Welfare Scheme. We are not going into the merits of that matter in a petition for police protection. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the members of respondent unions are willing to work, petitioners are prepared to employ them. Therefore, those workers if rejoin for work in the establishment, both management as W.P.(C)No.38301/2008 2 well as respondents shall not create any problem and the workers cannot take law into their hands. If they are not prepared to work, management will be free to engage other workers. Police is directed to see that law and order is maintained. Joining of the members of the respondent unions in the establishment will not prejudice the claims pending before the Labour Officer. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. J.B.KOSHY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE V.GIRI JUDGE tks