IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9243 of 2010(E)
1. K.BIJU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.INEES
For Respondent :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :20/01/2011
O R D E R
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
—————————————————-
W.P.(Civil) No.9243 of 2010
—————————————————-
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011
Judgment
Basant, J.
The petitioner has come to this court with this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of
directions for respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to
operate stage carriage No.KL-16/D-7051 on the route kadakkal-
Attingal without any obstruction or interference by respondents 4
to 6.
2. According to the petitioner, he is the registered owner of
the said vehicle. He has the stage carriage permit to operate the
vehicle in his name. He has his own employees to run the vehicle
also. Respondents 4 to 6, according to the petitioner, have
nothing to do with the petitioner’s vehicle. They are employees of
one Rajeev who is the owner and permit holder in respect of
another vehicle No.KL-16/D-7657. Respondents 4 to 6 who have
nothing to do with the petitioner and petitioner’s vehicle are
illegally obstructing the operation of the service of the petitioner.
It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has come to this court.
WPC 9243/2010 2
3. This writ petition was admitted on 19.3.2010. On
23.3.2010 interim directions were issued to respondents 1 to 3 “to
give adequate police protection for the willing workers of the
petitioner to ply his vehicle KL-16/D-7051 on the route Kadakkal-
Attingal as per the permit as against respondents 4 to 6”. This
interim direction which was initially for a period of 10 days has
been extended from time to time.
4. Respondents 5 and 6 have entered appearance. They
have filed counter affidavit. They contend that it is incorrect to
say that respondents 5 and 6 are not employees in the vehicle
KL-16/D-7051 operating on the route Kadakkal-Attingal. It is true
that this bus and the permit stand in the name of the petitioner
herein, but really and actually the petitioner is only a name
lender. A close relative of the petitioner herein by name Rajeev is
really in control of the situation. He has two vehicles, KL-16/D-
7051 and KL-16/D-7657 referred above. To deny benefits to the
workers, the records were maintained in the name of two
different individuals. The said Rajeev is not available in India and
is employed abroad. One Sadanandan, the father of said Rajeev
is actually carrying on the management of both vehicles together.
WPC 9243/2010 3
The petitioner and the said Rajeev and Sadanandan are resorting
to unfair labour practice to deny legitimate dues and benefits to
the employees in the two vehicles. The party respondents have
no intention to obstruct the running of the vehicle KL-16/D-7051.
They only want to raise peaceful protest. They want to raise an
industrial dispute. Rights of the employees are trammelled upon
and benefits are not being paid to the employees. Already the
labour authorities have been moved. But the petitioner is not co-
operating with the labour authorities. In these circumstances, the
constitutional powers under Article 226 cannot be invoked in
favour of the petitioner herein. This petition may be dismissed
and the interim order may be vacated, submits the learned
counsel for respondents 5 and 6.
5. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions
submits that there is a labour dispute between the parties and
the respective contentions are as indicated above. There is no
obstruction to the running of the vehicle. Now necessary
protection is being afforded in the light of the interim order. If
there will be any obstruction, necessary police protection shall be
afforded without any prejudice to the rights of the employees to
WPC 9243/2010 4
raise the industrial dispute and complain about the alleged unfair
labour practice and victimization by the employer of the two
vehicles against the employees including respondents 5 and 6.
6. We record the submission made on behalf of respondents
5 and 6 that they shall not obstruct the plying of the vehicle. We
make it clear that we have not intended to express any opinion
on merits about the labour dispute raised by the parties. It shall
be open to the parties to get their disputes resolved in
accordance with law. We further make it clear that we have not
intended in any manner to prevent the rights of the employees
including respondents 5 and 6 to demonstrate peacefully
demanding redressal of their grievances as employees. In the
light of the undertaking by respondents 5 and 6 that the peaceful
plying of the vehicle shall not be obstructed and in the light of the
undertaking by respondents 1 to 3 that if there is obstruction,
necessary police protection shall be afforded, we are satisfied no
further directions are necessary. In the light of the said
undertaking given, we do not want to invoke our powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution and issue any specific directions.
We repeat that we have not intended to express any opinion on
WPC 9243/2010 5
merits about the contentions of the rival sides about the stand
taken by them in the labour dispute. Documents have been
produced in respect of the rival contentions. We are carefully
avoiding any detailed reference to them lest it may prejudice the
interest of the either parties.
7. This writ petition in these circumstances dismissed
recording the above undertaking.
R.BASANT, JUDGE.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
srd WPC 9243/2010 6