IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31271 of 2010(H) ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- NIRMAN SINDIA REP. BY PROPRIETOR, JOSHY GEORGE KONDODY, M.D.COMMERCIAL CENTRE ROOM NO.45, K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN SRI.RAJI VINCENT RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 002. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 002. 3. DISTRICT FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS WORKERS UNION (CITU), KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY-686 002. 4. KORAH.P.S, POOZHIKUNNEL HOUSE, KURICHY P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 549. 5. JOY.K.J, KIZHAKKE MAPPILA THUNDATHIL HOUSE, NEENDOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 601. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA. ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R4,5 SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. FOR R4,5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.31271 OF 2010 H PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS; EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONSDENT DATED 5.10.2010. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.10.2010. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE POSTERS HAVE BEEN AFFIXED. EXT.P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE POSTERS HAVE BEEN AFFIXED. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY SBT, KOTTAYAM PUBLISHED BY MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 29.9.2010. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 29.10.2010. //True copy// PS to Judge K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 31271 OF 2010 H ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th November, 2010. JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other such writ, order or direction, commanding respondents 1 and 2 to afford effective and adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members, staff and employees, in the event of any attack or aggravation by respondents 3 to 5 or their supporters against the office or/and residence of the petitioner. ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other such appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate and effective action against respondents 3 to 5 after conducting necessary enquiry on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 complaints.” WP(C).NO.31271/2010 H 2 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a proprietary concern. Due to various reasons, the Company had to shut down for repairs and renovations which led to severe labour dispute. The Company has not been able to pay gratuity to eight employees. It is stated that there is threat from them. Though Ext.P1 complaint was preferred before the first respondent, eliciting no action, petitioner is before us. 3. A Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 4 and 5. They deny the allegations of threat. It is stated that they have not been paid gratuity. It is also stated that they have demanded for reopening the factory and for disbursement of gratuity. Petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the party respondents and the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner, of course, submits that the gratuity will be paid to the employees as and when funds are available to the Company. WP(C).NO.31271/2010 H 3 5. Learned counsel for the party respondents submits that the party respondents will not physically threaten the petitioner in the matter and they will only pursue their claims only in a legal way. We record the submission of the learned counsel for the party respondents that the party respondents will not threaten the petitioner or members of the petitioner's family and close the Writ Petition. We leave it open to the party respondents to pursue their claims and also agitate peacefully. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. //True copy// PS to Judge WP(C).NO.31271/2010 H 4