IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27904 of 2009(G)
1. NALKANAD COFFEE & PRODUCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. K.ABBAS,
4. B.SASI,
5. A.PURUSHOTHAMAN,
6. P.STEEPHAN,
7. G.BALACHANDRAN,
8. T.ANIL KUMAR,
9. S.RAJU,
10. M.KUNHUMUHAMMED,
11. T.ASHOKAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR
For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :24/02/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P(C). NO.27904 OF 2009 G
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th February, 2010
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding
second respondent to afford adequate and effective
police protection for smooth functioning of rubber
tapping in the estate of the petitioner by name
“Riverview Estate” from the threat and illegal
activities of respondents 3 to 11 in the interest of
justice.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner is a Private Limited Company, represented by its
Managing Director. According to petitioner, it has got sixteen
permanent labourers employed for rubber tapping and allied
works. Respondents 4 to 11 are labourers employed in the
Estate who belonged to CITU and the third respondent is the
WPC.27904/09 G 2
Area Secretary of the Union. One Shri Balakrishnan Nair, who
was a permanent labourer retired on 20.5.2009. Petitioner
appointed one Shri D. Raju in his place and tapping of 600
rubber trees, earlier allotted to Shri Balakrishnan Nair, are
allotted to the said Raju. It is stated that rubber trees are very
old and slaughter tapping is started with respect to the said trees.
It is stated that Shri D. Raju is not being permitted to conduct
tapping on the ground that a person from their Union should be
employed in the vacancy of Shri Balakrishnan Nair. They have
no right to make such a demand, since the Company is entitled
to appoint a person of their choice in the place of retired
employee. It is on these allegations, that the petitioner has
approached this Court.
3. This Court has passed an interim order to ensure that
law and order is maintained. Further order was passed as per
which the petitioner and the workers were directed to co-operate
with the conciliation. There is another order passed to the effect
that the petitioner must comply with the norms regarding
WPC.27904/09 G 3
tapping fixed by the competent authority concerned.
4. A Counter Affidavit is filed. Therein, the case set up is
as follows:
The owner of the Estate was maintaining very good
relationship with the workmen till he passed away. There are
only about 7000 yielding rubber trees. For getting continuous
work, one tapping employee should be allotted 900 rubber trees
comprised in three blocks. There were altogether eighteen
tapping workers and five field workers till 2008. 3000 trees
were given for slaughter and at that time, six tapping workers
were terminated. In addition to this, six workers, one tapper and
one helper retired. Now, there remain only eleven tapping
workers and four helpers. Thus, there is no sufficient work for
the existing eleven tapping workers after the slaughtering of the
trees. It is stated that 1000 trees were uprooted in inclement
weather, reducing work for the existing employees. Then it was
decided to give 600 more trees for slaughter tapping by directly
engaging a new worker. Petitioner has approached the
WPC.27904/09 G 4
Authorities and a conference is convened. A Reply Affidavit is
filed.
5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 11 and also the learned
Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner points
out that the Rubber Board has clarified that there are no norms.
He would submit further that when a permanent employee
retires, the petitioner has every right to employ its own worker
in his place, and that the Union has no right to obstruct. Learned
counsel for the party respondents would submit that they have
no objection if another person is appointed in the place of a
permanent employ who retires, but there must be sufficient
work. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there will
be sufficient work. We record these submissions and direct that
respondents 1 and 2 will provide adequate police protection
against respondents 3 to 11, in case they oppose work being
done by the person appointed in place of a retired employee,
provided the petitioner provide sufficient work to the
WPC.27904/09 G 5
employees. We also make it clear that the granting of this
protection will be subject to the further condition that the
petitioner will participate either personally or through a
representative in the conciliation proceedings, in the next
meeting scheduled to be held on 01.03.2010 and in any other
adjourned meeting.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge