IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1128 of 2010(M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JOSE THOMAS, VETTUTHURUTHIYIL HOUSE, MEKOZHER P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE SRI.V.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. 3. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. 4. AJI CHAKKALLETH HOUSE, MYLAPRA TOWN, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. 5. RATHEESH CHAKKALETH HOUSE, MYLAPPRA TOWN, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. 6. AJAYAN, CHAKKALETH HOUSE, MYLAPPRA TOWN, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. 7. PRAKASH, CHAKKALETH HOUSE, MYLAPPRA TOWN, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. 8. RATHEESH, PATHALIPPARAYIL, MYLAPPRA TOWN, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA. R4, 5, 6, 8 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1128 of 2010(M) APPENDIX; PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1A. TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 10.12.2009. EXT.P1B.TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 28.11.2009. EXT.P1C.TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 22.11.2009. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA, DATED 28.12.2009. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 22.12.2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R6A.TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7.8.2009. EXT.R6B.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.12.2009. EXT.R6C. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S DATED 12.1.2010. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.1128 of 2010-M ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i). to issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ direction or order and direct respondent 1 and 2 to grant adequate and effective of police protection to cut and remove the timber as per Exhibit P1(a) to P1(c) from ward No.9 and 10 of the Mylappra grama panchayat in Pathanamthitta District, without any obstruction from respondent 4 to 8 and their men' ii). issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ direction or order and direct the respondent 1and 2 take appropriate action on Exhibit P3 complaint submitted by the petitioner. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is engaged in small scale timber business. Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) are copies of agreements for purchase of timer according to the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner has engaged INTUC workers who are only recognized Trade union in Mylapra town. The Head Load WPC 1128/2010 -2- Workers' Act is not still extended to that area. It is stated that when the petitioner started cutting of timber as per Exts.P1(a) agreement respondents 4 to 6 obstructed the petitioner and his workmen. They are claiming to be head load workers, but they have no registration or card. They are also claiming 'Attmari culi'. It is stated that petitioner has filed complaint (Exts.P2 and P3). 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4, 5, 6 and 8 inter alia stating as follows: Respondents 4, 5, 6 and 8 have been working as headload workers in the Mylapra area for the last two years. Some INTUC workers are also working there as headload workers. Respondent workers applied for the registration under Rule 26A (1) of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent inspected the site and convinced that the respondent headload workers are the permanent headload workers in the area. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to Congress party and the INTUC workers are preventing 3rd respondent from issuing the registration card to the respondent workers and are creating problems in the locality. Dispute is now pending before the 3rd respondent. WPC 1128/2010 -3- He has issued notice of conciliation to the petitioner and to all recognised trade unions, it is submitted (Ext.R6(b). It is stated that the petitioner and INTUC Union did not cooperate with the conciliation proceedings. It is stated that the petitioner suppressed the fact that the dispute is pending before the 3rd respondent. It is stated that respondent workers are not causing any obstruction to the functioning of petitioner's business. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and also the learned Government Pleader. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner wants to do his business. According to him, only INTUC workers are registered. He would submit that petitioner is prepared to do business with the assistance of any registered worker irrespective of any union. He points out that as party respondents are concerned they are not registered workers and they have no right to obstruct. Learned counsel for the party respondents would submit that it is true that they are not registered, but their application is being obstructed by the INTUC workers. WPC 1128/2010 -4- 6. At present, respondents 4, 5, 6 and 8 are not registered workers. They themselves claim that they are not obstructing the petitioner. They have no right to obstruct. In such circumstances, police is duty bound to afford protection against any attempt of obstruction by respondents 4 to 8. The writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to grant adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner to cut and remove timber as per Ext.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) without obstruction from respondents 4 to 8. If there is a conciliation proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner will cooperate with the conciliation proceedings. Proceedings will be brought to logical culmination without delay. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS