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. 23993 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.NATARAJA PILLAI, PRESIDENT, PERUMAL SMARAKA NIDHI & PERUMAL KOIL TRUST, KOTTARATHIL BHAJAN MADHOM, MUNDAPUZHA, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689645. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADASSERIKKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689645. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNI-PERUNADU, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689645. 4. P.J.JOSEPH ALIAS JOHN JOSEPH, S/O.JOHN, PLATHANATHU VEEDU, MANAKKAYAM, CHITTAR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689663. 5. SAJI, PERUNADU MANDALAM PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS (I) PARTY, PERUNADU, PATHANAMTHITTA, GURUKULAM TOUTORIAL COLLEGE, PERUNADU, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689711. BY ADV.SMT.C.M.CHARISMA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.V.SETHUNATH FOR R4 AND R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C).No. 23993 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX EXHIBITS FOR THE PETITIONER : Ext.P1 : COPY OF REQUEST OF R4 Ext.P2 : COPY OF COMPLAINT BY R4 BEFORE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER Ext.P3 : COPY OF REQUEST FOR POLICE PROTECTION EXHIBITS FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Ext.R4(a) : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 4th RESPONDENT Ext.R4(b) : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE TO THE WRIT PETITIONER ON 31.8.2011 //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23993 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner who claims to be the President of a Trust called Perumal Smaraka Nidhi and Perumal Smaraka Trust, seeks directions of police protection for the lives of himself, his workers, staff and also to the properties belonging to the Trust. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed a detail counter affidavit, alongwith Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) notices. Ext.R4 (a), a notice issued to the 4th respondent by the District Labour Officer, who has initiated proceedings on the basis of a complaint filed by the 4th respondent that he has not been paid with any salary or remuneration, which is payable to him for his service as a Supervisor to the Trust, is produced. Also produced is Ext.R4(b) notice issued from the Union Office, of which the 4th respondent is member, to 2 W.P.(C) No.23993 of 2011 the petitioner informing that unless the petitioner co- operates in the proceedings initiated by the Labour Officer, the responsibility for the decisions taken in such proceedings will be that of the petitioner and that all such decisions will be binding on the petitioner. Significantly, it is contended that the 4th respondent has been unnecessarily dragged into the process of this Court and that there is no law and order problem in the properties belonging to the petitioner or in the locality. As regards Ext.P1 petition, under which the 4th respondent offered to work in the rubber estate of the petitioner as Supervisor on a monthly remuneration of Rs.2,000/-, it is contended that Ext.P1 is the result of fabrication and forgery. 2. Sri.S.Ananthakrishnan learned counsel for the petitioner addressed us on the basis of the grounds raised in the writ petition and those submissions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. His submissions were on the basis of the averments in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 and 5. Learned Government Pleader 3 W.P.(C) No.23993 of 2011 submitted that, since the issue is pending before the DLO, the workers were directed to have settlement of such dispute from the DLO. 3. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar as well as the pleadings raised by the parties and the materials placed before us, we are of the view that the grievances which the 4th respondent is having against the petitioner should be got redressed in the proceedings initiated by the DLO as per Ext.R4(a) notice. Respondents 4 and 5 are not entitled to obstruct the work for the reason that proceedings are pending before the DLO. Though it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 and 5 that, they have been unnecessarily dragged into the process of this Court, the counter affidavit does not contain any undertaking or assurance to the effect that they will not obstruct the functioning of the Trust and the estate belonging to the Trust. Hence we are of the view that, even as proceedings are pending before the DLO, the protection sought for can be granted. Accordingly, we 4 W.P.(C) No.23993 of 2011 dispose of the writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to afford requisite protection to the lives of the petitioner, his workers and staff and also for the proper running of the estate belonging to the Trust, of which the petitioner is the President, in case there is threat from the part of respondents 4 and 5 or any obstruction from their part in the matter of running of the estate. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/