IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 21749 of 2011(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PALAMPADAM PLANTATIONS LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 14/562, TELEGRAPH OFFICE ROAD, KOTTAYAM P.O., PIN-686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR P.T. THOMAS. BY SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS, SRI.BINU MATHEW, SRI.TERRY V.JAMES, SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH, SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL). RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. PIN-686 002. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. PIN-686 507. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM. PIN-686 543. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM. PIN-686 509. 5. M/S.PUTHUPARAMBIL AGENCIES (PRIVATE) LTD, REGISTERED OFFICE AT PUTHUPARAMBIL BUILDINGS, MUNDAKKAYAM. P.O., PIN-686 513. 6. GENERAL SECRETARY, HIGH RANGE ESTATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CITU), MUNDAKKAYAM. P.O., PIN-686 513. WP(C).No. 21749 of 2011(P) 7. K.P. SASI, MAMPADY ESTATE, KANNIMALA. P.O., ERUMELY. PIN-686 509. 8. M.M. MOHAMMED BASHEER, MAMPADY ESTATE, KANNIMALA. P.O., ERUMELY. PIN-686 509. 9. C.D. SABU, MAMPADY ESTATE, KANNIMALA. P.O., ERUMELY. PIN-686 509. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M. CHARISMA. R5 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN. R6 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 21749 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 31/05/2011 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09/06/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 03/08/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE DRAFT SALE DEED PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R7(a): COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED BY THE MANAGEMENT AND UNION ON 20/05/1993 IN THE PRESENCE OF DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21749 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The petitioner is a company incorporated, which owns and manages a Rubber estate namely 'Mampady estate', having an extent of 61.48 Hectors. 29 workers were employed in the estate who are represented through the 6th respondent union. The petitioner had entered into an agreement for sale of the estate with the 5th respondent, as evidenced from Ext.P1 agreement. It is alleged that, by virtue of Ext.P1, the purchaser had agreed to continue the workers in employment. But on coming to know about the proposed sale, certain workers under the 6th respondent union, including respondents 7 to 9, went on indefinite strike from 4.3.2011 onwards. They have created obstructions in removal of large quantity of latex and scrap Rubber stocked in the godown and the petitioner was 2 W.P.(C) No.21749 of 2011 prevented from entering into the estate and from taking out the materials stocked. The petitioner submitted Exts.P2 & P3 before the 4th respondent. But he did not take any action or effective steps to remove such obstructions. In the meanwhile, on 10.8.2011 sale deed was executed in favour of the 5th respondent and inspite of transfer of ownership, respondents 6 to 9 are continuing with the obstructions. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking directions for affording adequate and effective police protection in order to enter the estate premises and to remove the latex and scrap Rubber and also seeking protection for the 5th respondent to take over and carry on operations in the estate. 2. In the counter affidavit of the 7th respondent it is contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition, in view of the transfer of ownership. It is further contended that, no workers were served with any notice intimating the transfer, or about any undertaking for continuation of their employment. It is contended that the workers are entitled for continuity of employment, under 3 W.P.(C) No.21749 of 2011 Section 22 FF of the Industrial Dispute Act ; under the same terms and conditions on which they were employed. However, it is stated that there was no physical obstruction caused to the petitioner as alleged. It is further contended that, inspite of the purchase by the 5th respondent, they are not coming forward with any writ petition and that they have no case about any obstructions caused, as alleged. Therefore, the 7th respondent is refuting all the allegations raised in the writ petition. 3. Sri.Joseph Kodianthara, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Dinesh Mathew J.Muricken appearing for respondents 5 and 6, Smt.Liji J.Vadakedom, learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 to 9 and Smt.C.M.Charisma, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4, addressed arguments. 4. Confronted with the contentions regarding locus standi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner conceded that the relief sought can be confined to protection for removal of the latex, scrap and other 4 W.P.(C) No.21749 of 2011 materials stocked in the estate premises, which belongs to the petitioner in terms of the agreement for sale. Considering the rival submissions and the circumstances prevailing, we are of the considered opinion that police protection need be granted to the petitioner for removal of such stock. 5. Accordingly, the 3rd and 4th respondents are directed to afford adequate protection to the petitioner for removal of the materials now stocked in the estate. If there is any obstruction from the side of respondents 6 to 9, effective steps should be taken to remove such obstructions and to facilitate the petitioner to transport such materials. 6. We make it clear that, if there is any continued obstructions or hindrances to the functioning of the estate, the 5th respondent who is the present owner will be at liberty to seek appropriate reliefs. We further make it clear that we have not observed anything about the legal rights or claims of the employees for continuation in employment 5 W.P.(C) No.21749 of 2011 or regarding any claims of them with respect to benefits arising out of the employment. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions and observations. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/