IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23781 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SABU JOSEPH, EDAYODIYIL HOUSE, POONJAR. 2. DOMINIC DOMINIC, VAYALIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 3. ROBIN MATHEW, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, VANDIPPERIYAR. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDANMEDU-685 551. 2. AMBIYIL MURUGAN, SECRETARY, IJEMS (BMS), VANDANMEDU-685 551. 3. C.KANNAN, BRANCH SECRETARY, MPE UNION (CITU), VANDIPPERIYAR-685 533. 4. SABU, EZHUVAPARAMBIL, RAJAKANDOM, VANDANMEDU P.O.-685 551. 5. UNNIPPILLA, MAILAPPALLIL, RAJAKANDOM, VANDANMEDU P.O.-685 551. 6. INDIRA, VARIKKATTU HOUSE, RAJAKANDOM, VANDANMEDU P.O.-685 551. 7. MOHANAN, VARIKKATTU HOUSE, RAJAKANDOM, VANDANMEDU P.O.-685 551. 2 WP(C).No. 23781 of 2011(W) 8. THOMASKUTTY, ELUMMOOTTIL, RAJAKANDOM, VANDANMEDU P.O.-685 551. 9. KUNJIKUTTY, MANAMBIL HOUSE, RAJAKANDOM, VANDANMEDU P.O.-685 551. BY ADV. SMT.C.M.CHARISMA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAJESH NAIR FOR R3 & R8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23781 of 2011(W) APPENDIX EXHIBITS FOR THE PETITIONERS : Ext.P1 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 29.5.2010 Ext.P2 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGE/DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.6.2011 Ext.P3 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGE/DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 9.7.2011 Ext.P4 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGE/DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.6.2011 Ext.P5 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGE/DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 8.7.2011 Ext.P6 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGE/DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 8.7.2011 Ext.P7 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGE/DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 9TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.7.2011 Ext.P8 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.6.2011 Ext.P9 : COPY OF the REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE the 1st RESPONDENT DATED 21.7.2011 EXHIBITS FOR THE RESPONDENTS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23781of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The petitioners are partners of a firm which owns an estate situated at Rajakandom near Nedumkandam. Respondents 2 and 3 are the leaders of the trade unions representing workers in the estate and respondents 4 to 9 are workers themselves. It is stated that the petitioners have initiated disciplinary proceedings against respondents 4 to 9 and Exts.P2 to Ext.P7 notices were issued proposing domestic enquiry on the basis of the charges levelled against them. It is alleged that, as an off-shoot of the actions, the respondents are now creating obstructions to the normal works in the petitioners' estate. It is further alleged that the 2nd respondent and his henchmen had prevented the willing workers from attending their duty. It is further alleged that, along with the help of goondas they 2 W.P.(C) No.23781of 2011 are creating obstructions at the estate gate by preventing ingress and egress. It is contended that there exist rivalry between the 2nd and 3rd respondent unions and the situation had resulted in paralysing the entire harvesting works in the estate. According to the petitioner, there exist law and order situation and breach of peace. The petitioner submitted Exts.P8 and Ext.P9 complaints before the 1st respondent. But no effective steps were taken. Hence this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri.Rajesh Nair learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 3 and 8. Inspite of service of notice from this Court, the other party respondents have not entered appearance or contested the case. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 8 contended that the 8th respondent had not abstained from duty as alleged in Ext.P6 notice and that the writ petition is filed with an oblique motive of ousting the workers, against whom Exts.P2 to Ext.P7 notices were issued, with a view to engage temporary workers in lieu of them. However, it is conceded that 3 W.P.(C) No.23781of 2011 respondents 3 and 8 have not caused any obstruction to the petitioners, their willing workers or to the management staff and that they have no such intention also. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the rival contentions, we are of the opinion that respondents 2 to 9 or anybody claiming under them, have no manner of right to obstruct the petitioners, their management staff, and the willing workers from doing the works in the estate. They have also no manner of right to create any obstruction to the ingress and egress to the estate or to the movement of vehicles to and from the estate. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to take effective steps to remove such obstructions if any caused and to afford protection for smooth conduct of the works in the estate. 5. However, we make it clear that the 8th respondent will be at liberty to participate in the enquiry proceedings initiated on the basis of Ext.P6 notice. We further observe 4 W.P.(C) No.23781of 2011 that if the 8th respondent is willing to do his duty, he shall not be prevented in any manner, because it is conceded that he is not suspended from service, till date. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/