IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25478 of 2010(H)
1. MRIDHUL TIMBERS PVT.LTD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONKUNNAM.
... Respondent
2. C.I.T.U., CHIRAKKADAVU, PONKUNNAM,
3. I.N.T.U.C., REPRESETNED BY ITS SECRETARY
4. AITUC, REPRESETNED BY
For Petitioner :SMT.S.JASMINE
For Respondent :SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :03/12/2010
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH &
M. C. HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO. 25478 OF 2010 H
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd December, 2010.
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following
relief:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st
respondent to provide necessary police protection to
the petitioner Company for loading and unloading the
timber at the stockyard belonging to the Company at
Chirakkadavu, Ponkunnam using crane and a crane
operator and two helpers employed by the Company”.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
W.P.(C).NO.25478/2010 H 2
Petitioner is carrying on business of purchasing and selling
all types of timbers in Venginissery, Thrissur. Petitioner wanted to
start a unit at Chirakadavu, Ponkunnam. The Company purchased
a property there which is being used as a stockyard of timber.
Petitioner is using a crane and one crane operator and two helpers
employed by the petitioner. No more workmen is needed by the
petitioner. There is reference to obstruction by respondents 2 to 4
and the petitioner is before this Court.
3. A Counter Affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 2 to
4, to which a Reply Affidavit also is filed by the petitioner.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the party respondents and also the learned Government
Pleader. We had passed an interim order dated 17.8.2010 which
reads as follows:
“There will be an interim order directing first
respondent to provide protection to the petitioner for
loading and unloading the timber at the stockyard
W.P.(C).NO.25478/2010 H 3
covered by Ext.P1 licence, using crane and crane
operator employed by the Company as against any
obstruction from the members of respondents 2 to 4 for
a period of three weeks.”
Subsequently, we have clarified it in I.A.No.12344/2010 as
follows:
“We clarify that police protection to load and
unload timber will also be applicable to the stockyard
of the petitioner in Sy.No.66/12-2, 66/13-1 of
Chirakkadavu Village where the timber is stocked and
that two persons can be employed for operating the
crane. We record the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that if there is any loading
and unloading work to be done manually, petitioner
will engage members of respondents 2 to 4. The
interim order will continue for ten days.”
5. Today, when the matter came up, learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that this Court has permitted only two
workers for operating the crane. She would submit that apart from
W.P.(C).NO.25478/2010 H 4
the driver, two helpers are required for operating the crane.
According to the learned counsel for the party respondents and also
the learned Government Pleader, two workers alone are sufficient.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out Ext.P4 order
wherein, without specifying any number as such, the persons to
operate the crane were given protection. We feel that as long as
the petitioner has a right to do the work mechanically and if the
petitioner is not doing the work of loading and unloading
manually, it may be open to the petitioner to have three workers in
all for carrying out the work of operating the crane for the purpose
of doing loading and unloading work mechanically. In such
circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Petition in terms of the
interim order as clarified by the order dated 9.9.2010 in
I.A.No.12344/2010, subject to the modification that instead of two
persons, three persons can be employed for operating the crane.
Needless to say, the direction will include the recording of the
submission of the counsel for petitioner that if any loading and
W.P.(C).NO.25478/2010 H 5
unloading work has to be done manually, petitioner will engage
members of respondents 2 to 4. We make it abundantly clear that
the three persons who are allowed by us will not be employed for
loading and unloading work manually and they are allowed only
for the purpose of operating the crane.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.C. HARI RANI,
JUDGE
kbk.
//True Copy//
PS to Judge