IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1294 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27988/2010 DATED 20/09/2010 ............. PETITIONER / PETITIONER ------------------------- THE TRAVANCORE RUBBER AND TEA COMPANY LIMITED, PLANTATION HOUSE, PATTOM PALACE. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE MR.R.SIVARAMAKRISHNA SARMA, S/O. SIVARAMAKRISHNA SARMA, AGED 38 YEARS. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 & 8 : --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GEORGE VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S.P. QUARTERS, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685 603. 2. RAJ MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERUMEDU, CIRCLE INSPECTORS QUARTERS, PEERUMEDU POLICE STATION, IDUKKI-685 531. 3. SHAJI BHONSALAE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUVAMTHANAM POLICE STATION, PIN-686 513. 4. K.T.BINU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME AMBALA THANGAN, KATTA THARAYIL VEEDU MULAMKUNNU 35TH MILE, MUNDAKKAYAM EAST, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 513. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ Cont. Case NO:1294 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st February, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. We have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Govt. Pleader for the respondents. Allegation is that the police is not taking any action in completing the investigation and filing the final report before the Court pertaining to the theft of agricultural crop (rubber latex) by the employees who are under strike. Counsel for the petitioner and Govt. Pleader submitted that there is an attempt to settle the matter and discussions are going on. Of course in a settlement the employer can forgive the employees. On the specific condition that the employees will not repeat the same and on such terms and conditions agreed between the union and the management. However, if there is no settlement it is the duty of the police to complete the investigation and lay final charges against those involved in theft or other offences. Since petitioner's counsel has specifically pointed out that the high price of rubber encourages employees to go on strike, on trivial matters and Cont. Case 1294/2010 2 then tap the rubber trees illegally and sell the crop, we feel the police should take serious action in terms of the judgment. Contempt case is closed leaving freedom to the petitioner to approach this Court again if police do not charge sheet the accused, in the event there is no settlement between parties. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj Cont. Case 1294/2010 3