IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20242 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------ MADHUSOODANAN.G, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, SARANYA BHAVAN, ALIMUKKU, VETTITHITTA P.O., PIRAVANTHOOR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR POLICE STATION, PUNALUR-691 305. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAPURAM-689 695. 4. RAJAN, CONVENOR, CITU, KADACKAMON, PIRAVANTHOOR-689 696. 5. RAJENDRAN, CONVENER, INTUC, KADACKAMON, PIRAVANTHOOR-689 696. 6. MURALI, CONVENER, INTUC, KADACKAMON, PIRAVANTHOOR-689 696. 7. KUTTAPPAN, CONVENER, AITUC, KADACKAMON, PIRAVANTHOOR-689 696. 8. RAJU, CONVENER, KTUC, KADACKAMON, PIRAVANTHOOR-689 696. 9. UTHUMANKANNU, CONVENER, INTUC, NADUKKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM-689 695. 10. SALIM, CONVENER, CITU, NADUKKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM-689 695. 11. NAGUR MEERAN, CONVENER, KTUC, NADUKKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM-689 695. 12. SHAMZ, CONVENER, AITUC, NADUKKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM-689 695. 13. ASHOK P.JOHN, KOLLAMKERIL BUNGALOW, NADUKKUNNU P.O., PATHANAPURAM-689 695. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R9-12 BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20242 of 2011(E) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 13TH RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER DATED 14.06.2011. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPONDENTS NO.10, 11 & 12 DATED 20.06.11. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMIITED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DT. 11.7.11. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR, DT. 11.07.2011. EXT.P5. COPY of the PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE DT. 11.7.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO. JUDGE VK PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 20242 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim,J. The petitioner is seeking police protection to his life as well as for execution of the work of cutting and removal of rubber trees standing in property of one Baby Rani. The 13th respondent herein had purchased Rubber Trees standing in the property of Baby Rani, having an extent of 1 Acre 34 cents situated in Pathanapuram Village. By virtue of Ext.P1 agreement executed between the petitioner and the 13th respondent the petitioner had undertaken for cutting and removal of the rubber trees standing in the property in question. When the petitioner started the work of cutting of the Rubber trees by engaging members of respondents 9 to 12 trade unions, the respondents 4 to 8 unions and their members had created obstructions claiming that they are entitled to do such works within the area wherein the property is situated. Since respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any action to remove such obstructions, inspite of specific complaints submitted, this writ petition is filed. 2. Inspite of service of notice from this court respondents 4 to 8 have not entered appearance, nor they have chosen to contest the WP(C) .20242/2011 2 matter. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 9 to 12 unions submitted that the members of those unions are ready and willing to execute the work, through their members. Heard; learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. It is submitted that there exists a dispute regarding the right to do the work, between respondents 4 to 8 unions on one side and respondents 9 to 12 on the other side. Since it is in the nature of a labour dispute the police authorities have advised the parties to seek appropriate remedy from the competent authorities. 3. We notice that the work in question mainly is for cutting, sizing and removal of Rubber trees which is not a headload work coming within the purview of the Kerala Headload Workers Act or the schemes made thereunder. However loading of timber logs cut and stacked may involve element of headload work. It is stated that the functional operation of the scheme under the Headload Workers Act has not yet commenced in the area in question. Under such circumstances the petitioner is entitled to engage workers of his own choice for executing the work in question. From the contentions put forth it is evident that the petitioner is ready and willing to engage members of respondents 9 to 12 unions. We do not find any statutory provisions for respondents 4 to 8 to claim engagement of their WP(C) .20242/2011 3 members for execution of the work, as a matter of right. Nor we find any right for them to obstruct the work in question. Therefore we are of the opinion that the work intended to be executed by the petitioner could not be prevented on the basis of the claims raised by respondents 4 to 8 union. 4. Therefore we are of the view that if there is any obstruction caused to the petitioner to execute the work, or if there is any threat to the life of the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 are bound to take effective steps to remove such obstructions and to afford necessary protection to the life of the petitioner as well as to the workers engaged by him. We direct respondents 2 and 3 to do so. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .20242/2011 4