IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17734 of 2007(J)
1. C.J.PRASAD, AARUMALAYIL,
... Petitioner
2. M.T.SAJIMON, PUKADIMALAYIL,
3. A.N.SIVAN, ALAMCHERI,
4. THANKACHAN A.B., AANJALITHARYIL,
5. K.P.PRASAD, KADANCHIRA,
6. P.A.RASHEED, PUKADYMALIYIL,
7. P.T.THOMAS, PUKADYMALIYIL,
Vs
1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE MANAGER, DISTRICT DEPOT,
4. THE CHAIRMAN,
5. A.T.BIJU, KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
6. V.K.SUNIL, VELIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
7. K.K.AYYAPPAN, KIZHEKKEKKUTTU,
For Petitioner :SRI.FEBIN J.VELUKARAN
For Respondent :SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :03/06/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
——————————————————————————–
Writ Petition (C) No.17734 of 2007-J
——————————————————————————–
Judgment
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioners are headload workers attached to pool no.38B under the
4th respondent. The membership of respondents 5 to 7 of that pool now stands
terminated as per Ext.P2. The petitioners submit, the said respondents have
joined another union and with their support, are coming to the work place and
trying to threaten the petitioners and manhandle them. In the above
background, they have moved the police for necessary protection so that they
can do the work under the pool without any obstruction from the said
respondents. When the police did not take any action, this Writ Petition is filed,
seeking appropriate reliefs.
2. This court, while admitting the Writ Petition, issued an interim order
in favour of the petitioners. Respondents 5 to 7 have filed a counter affidavit,
stating that they have taken steps to avoid Ext.P2 in appropriate proceedings.
They also deny the allegation that they are threatening the petitioners. In fact,
they are only three in number whereas the petitioners are 7. So, the allegations
are unfounded, it is submitted.
WPC 17734/07 2
3. We heard the learned Government Pleader for the official
respondents and also the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.
As long as Ext.P2 remains in force, we feel that the interim order granted by
this court should remain in force. But, if Ext.P2 is set aside by the competent
authority and the membership of respondents 5 to 7 in the pool is restored, the
interim order granted by this court will stand vacated.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE
03.06.2008 M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE
sta
WPC 17734/07 3