IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18183 of 2011(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- RAJU M.K., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KUNJHIKKOPPAN, MUNDOLI HOUSE, MUNIPPARA DESOM, KANJHIRAPPILLY P.O., CHALAKKUDY-VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THRISSUR-680003. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKKUDY CIRCLE, CHALAKKUDY P.O., THRISSUR- 680307. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION, CHALAKKUDY PO, THRISSUR-680307. 4. CITU, HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION, MANIPPARA UNIT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.K.K.RAJU, KOCHUKADAVUKARAN HOUSE, KANJHIRAPPILLY P.O., MANIPPARA, CHALAKKUDY-VIA, THRISSUR DIST. 680721. 5. BMS HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION, MANIPPARA UNIT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.A.V.SHAJU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, APPANAKUZHI HOUSE, KANJHIRAPPILLY P.O., CHALAKKUDY-VIA, MANIPPARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680721 tss W.P.(C) NO.18183/2011 6. INDEPENDENT HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION, MANIPPARA UNIT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.M.S.NARAYANANKUTTY, S/O.SUBRAN, MUNDOLI HOUSE,KANJHIRAPPILLY P.O., CHALAKKUDY-VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680721. 7. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF DLO, THRISSUR-680603. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R4 TO R6 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.18183/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST THRISSUR DT. 17.1.11. P2:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF EXPLOSIVE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE ADM, THRISSUR DT.D 17.12.10. P3:- COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DTD. 22.1.11. P4:- COPY OF THE SHORT FIRE LICENSE DTD. 7.7.10. P5:- COPY OF THE PANCHAYATH LICENSE ISSUED BY THE PARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, DTD. 29.6.11. P6:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CONCILIATION DECISION TAKEN BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO WAGES TARIFF DTD. 12.11.09. P7:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 DT.D 29.6.11. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18183 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Abdul Rehim, J. Petitioner is conducting a Granite Quarry in Pariyaram village, near Chalakkudy, on the strength of Ext.P1 to P5 permits, consents and licences obtained from various authorities. Respondents 4 to 6 are trade unions representing local head load workers. It is stated that the petitioner is usually engaging members of those trade union for loading of the products from the quarry. It is evident that there occurred conciliation regarding settlement of wages for the loading works. Ext.P6 is the Minutes of the conciliation in which a settlement was arrived. 2. Complaint of the petitioner is that the members of respondents 4 to 6 not doing the loading works nowadays, demanding exorbitant amount of wages than what was settled through Ext.P6. It is stated that the petitioner is W.P.(C).18183 of 2011 -2- agreeable for payment of wages stipulated in Ext.P6, but the respondents 4 to 6 are demanding higher wages even to the extent of double the amount stipulated. The members of respondents 4 to 6 are creating obstructions and even blocking vehicles coming to the quarry site on the basis of the disputes pertaining to claim for higher wages. It is alleged that on 17.6.2011 forceful obstruction was caused to the quarrying operations and the petitioner became compelled to close down the quarry, which was not even permitted to be restarted, by creating obstructions further on 27.6.2011. Regarding the illegal obstructions, Ext.P7 complaint was lodged before respondents 1to 3. But since no action was taken, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 6 it is mentioned that the members of the trade unions have never made any demand for wages at double the rate of what was agreed in Ext.P6, as alleged. On the other hand the petitioner attempted to do loading works of quarry waste by using JCB which was resisted by W.P.(C).18183 of 2011 -3- the members of the unions. According to respondents 4 to 6, the workers are ready and willing to do the loading works in the quarry on payment of wages as agreed upon under Ext.P6. It is also alleged that the petitioner has not made any complaint before the office bearers of the trade unions, with respect to any demand made by any of the workers for higher wages. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that the petitioner is ready and willing to engage workers belonging to respondents 4 to 6 unions, if they are prepared to do the work at the rate of wages agreed upon under Ext.P6. If they are not willing to work, the petitioner may be granted protection to do such work by employing his own men, is the appeal made. 5. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 submitted that on the basis of the complaint received enquiry was made and it is revealed that the dispute arose only because the petitioner attempted to do the loading works with JCB instead of providing employment to the members of respondents 4 to 6 unions. W.P.(C).18183 of 2011 -4- 6. Considering the factual aspects we are of the opinion that, basically there exist a labour dispute, connected with the conciliation settlement arrived as per Ext.P6. If there is any violation, the petitioner can approach the concerned labour authorities or the leaders of respondents 4 to 6 unions. However, we make it clear that the respondents 4 to 6 are not entitled to create any physical obstruction if the loading work is provided to the members of unions at the rate agreed upon under Ext.P6. Respondents 1 to 3 should keep a vigil with respect to maintenance of law and order situation and to see that issue does not precipitate into any unlawful activities and breach of peace in the locality. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb