IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33266 of 2010(G)
1. KERALA CEMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CITY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
4. C.P.RASHEED, CONVENOR,
5. C.I.T.U,
6. I.N.T.U.C.,
7. S.T.U
8. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
9. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
For Respondent :SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :09/11/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.P.C.No.33266 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of November 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.JOSEPH,J
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or orders, directing
the respondents 1 to 3 to give sufficient
adequate and effective police protection to the
cement dealers in Kozhikode District for loading
and unloading cement to and from their
godowns and also for transporting cement in
Kozhikode district.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or orders, directing
the 1st respondent to take sufficient and
adequate steps to prevent causing damages to
the vehicles transporting cement in Kozhikode
District by the members of the respondent Union
5 to 8.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing the
1st respondent to enquire into and to take
W.P.C.No.33266 of 2010 2
prompt and effective actions on Exts.P3 to P6
crimes registered in the respective police
stations.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
3. Petitioner is a registered Association of cement
dealers in Kozhikode district. The nature of the business
activities involves stocking of cement sacks in godown and
transporting the same to the suppliers in and around Kozhikode
city. There is an existing agreement between the petitioner
association and the railway goodshed workers union with regard
to the loading and unloading of cement sacks from the goods
wagons at the West Hill – Kallai railway goodshed. Ext.P1 is the
agreement dated 12/5/2008 which expires on 12/11/2010. There
are negotiations going on between the representatives of the
petitioner association as well as respondents 5 to 8 (must be 4 to
7). The further allegation is that the agreement relates to
loading and unloading within the railway goodshed premises
only. The complaint is that the members of respondents 4 to 7
have started to threaten the members of the petitioner
Association demanding that the Association should accept their
demands in toto while renewing the agreement. The petitioner
W.P.C.No.33266 of 2010 3
has informed that the issue could be sorted out in the presence
of the Assistant Labour Officer, Kozhikode; but the members of
the Unions have started to obstruct the loading and unloading of
cement from the godown of the dealers into their vehicles.
Further, they have waylaid the vehicles which have been
transporting cement and causing extensive damage to the
vehicles as well as the goods carried therein. Incidents were
promptly reported to the police station. Ext.P2 is the complaint
of the driver of the lorry. There are similar incidents. Exts.P3 to
P5 are complaints given by the drivers. Petitioner Association
filed Ext.P6 representation. Again it is followed by Ext.P8
representation. Ext.P8(a) is the letter signed by the 4th
respondent who is the Convener of the Goodshed workers’ Co-
ordination Committee which met on 20/07/2010 to achieve the
demands put forward by them.
4. Counter affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent. The
respondents would inter alia state as follows. There were 321
loading and unloading workers at the West Hill section and 72
workers at Kallai section. Reference is made to another
agreement entered into on 16/09/2008. Similar agreement with
W.P.C.No.33266 of 2010 4
respect to loading and unloading of cement from the goods
wagon at Kallai alone is produced by the petitioner as Ext.P1.
The petitioner has purposefully suppressed the work agreement
with respect to the West Hill section. The said agreement was
executed on 16/09/2008. It is stated that as per the decision of
the Head Load Workers Board, 32 workers were shifted from
West Hill to Kallai Section. Ext.R4(a) is the copy of the
agreement which was already ended on 15/09/2010. The
workers submitted Ext.R4(b) representation seeking
enhancement of wages from Rs.1.90 to Rs.6/- per sack. A new
agreement has to be executed. Ext.R4(c) produced is the
agreement in respect of 108 employees for a period of 30 months
from 13/5/2008. The writ petition is filed as a pressure tactics to
compel the workers to do the loading and unloading work at the
existing rate of Rs.1.90/- per sack. It is stated that joint meetings
were convened by the Chairman of the Head load workers Board
because of the adamant stand taken by the petitioner
association. The godowns of the petitioner association are
situated far away from the West Hill and Kallai good shed, the
work place of these employees. It is absolutely false to say that
W.P.C.No.33266 of 2010 5
they have waylaid the vehicles in which were transporting the
cement. Exts.P2 to P5 are false complaints. Ext.P6
representation to the District Collector contains vague
allegations.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the party respondents and the learned
Government Pleader. The complaint of the petitioner essentially
relates to obstruction by members of respondents 4 to 7 in doing
the work of loading and unloading cement to and from their
godown and also in transporting cement in Kozhikode district.
The agreements with the party respondents relate to the loading
and unloading work to be done in the railway good sheds is their
case. It is the case of the petitioner that the party respondents
have no right to do loading and unloading work in the godowns.
It is the case of the petitioner that loading and unloading work in
the godowns is being done with the help of registered workers in
the area.
6. The learned counsel for the party respondents would
reiterates the contentions in the counter affidavit and would
submit that the filing of the writ petition is only a pressure
W.P.C.No.33266 of 2010 6
tactics to compel the workers to accept the terms of employment
not acceptable otherwise to the respondents. They would deny
the allegations of obstruction or causing damage. It is stated
that the godowns are located at far away places. The learned
Government Pleader would point out that vehicles which are
located away from the good sheds have been damaged and six
crimes have been registered. It is also submitted by the learned
Government Pleader that the assailants are said to be
unidentified persons.
7. We record the submission of the learned counsel for
the party respondents that they will not cause any obstruction to
the loading and unloading of cement from the godown of the
cement dealers and for transporting cement in Kozhikode
district. If, contrary to the said submission, the petitioner brings
forth any complaint to the 1st respondent of any such threat from
members of respondents 4 to 7, the 1st respondent shall take
prompt action to give protection as against any obstruction of
loading and unloading cement from the godowns of the cement
dealers and for transporting the same in Kozhikode district by
respondent s4 to 7. We further make it clear that this would be
W.P.C.No.33266 of 2010 7
without prejudice to the right of the party respondents to agitate
peacefully and seek enhancement of wages or any other
conditions of service which they feel entitled to, so long as they
do not obstruct the work of the petitioner.
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
W.P.C.No.33266 of 2010 8
W.P.C.No.33266 of 2010 9
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
.No. of 200
ORDER/JUDGMENT
30/082010