IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 17429 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PANTHALLOOKKARAN GRANITES, DHARBHAPADAM, INJAKUNDU.P.O, TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, C.A.ASHRAF, S/O.C.M.ABDUL RAHMAN, ALCANAL HOUSE, MANNAM.P.O, PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHUKKAD POLICE STATION, TRICHUR. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARANTHARAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION(CITU), MUPLIAM, THRISSUR. 4. HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION (INTUC), VELLARAM PADAM UNIT, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THRISSUR DISTRICT GENERAL MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 TO R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RANI DIATHIMA. R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.17429 OF 2010-C: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR CONDUCTING THE QUARRY DATED 25.2.2010. EXT.P1A. TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR METAL CRUSHER UNIT DATED 25.2.2010. EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED 15.3.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5A.TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DATED 19.10.2005 BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATIVE OF PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5. EXT.R5B. TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.2.2006 IN WPC NO.2751/2006. EXT.R5C. TRUE COPY OF CONCILLIATION NOTICE DATED 6.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.17429 of 2010-C ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner and his workers as well as for ingress and egress to the petitioner's establishment covered by Ext.P1 and P1 (a) in the event of any obstruction caused by respondents 3 to 5 and their men.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:Petitioner is a firm doing business of granite quarry. He is conducting a metal crusher unit in the same premises. The entire loading and unloading activity of the premises are being done by mechanical devices. Petitioner has got 18 workers in the quarry and metal crusher unit whose main work is the work in the metal crusher unit. Apart from that the petitioner's unit is situated in Injakundu which is not an WPC 17429/2010 -2- area covered by Head Load Workers Scheme and there is no legal right for any head load worker to insist that he should be engaged. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 3 to 5. Therein it is inter alia stated as follows: Respondents 3 to 5 are registered trade unions representing the workers of the quarry and metal crusher unit. The terms of employment are governed Ext.R5(a) settlement. The settlement will expire only on 30.6.2010. Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. ( C) 2751 of 2006 to circumvent Ext.R5(a). The unions contested the matter and the matter was concluded by Ext.R5 (b) judgment. The members of respondents 3 to 5 are working in the quarry continuously and uninterruptedly from 2005 onwards in accordance with the stipulations contained in Ext.R5(a) settlement as confirmed by Ext.R5(b) judgment. The allegation that the workers belonging to respondent unions are no longer interested in the work is totally incorrect. Respondents 3 to 5 have submitted demand notices for enhanced wages. The matter is pending before the District Labour Officer, Thrissur. WPC 17429/2010 -3- 4. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit wherein he has inter alia stated that the averment that workers are working in the quarry continuously and uninterruptedly from 2005 onwards is false. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the party respondents and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the it is a labour dispute. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, now it is a machanised unit and though Ext.R5(b) judgment is rendered, workers did not turn up and the petitioner is left with no other choice except to work the quarry with mechanical devices. Per contra, learned counsel for the party respondents would point out that the averments in the writ petition itself would show that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier and averred that the unit is mechanised but still the Court passed Ext.R5(b) judgment. He would submit that the question whether the workers worked in terms of the settlement or not is clearly a disputed question of fact, which this Court cannot decide. He would submit that while it is true WPC 17429/2010 -4- that the settlement expires on 30.6.2010, under the statute unless the petitioner terminates the agreement by giving two months' notice the settlement which is already existing will continue to hold good unless another settlement is arrived at. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to bring to our notice any such notice terminating the earlier settlement. In such circumstances, we may not be justified in granting the relief to the petitioner. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right available to the petitioner in law. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS