P.Sasidharan Asari vs The District Superintendent Of … on 11 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18041 of 2009(A)


1. P.SASIDHARAN ASARI,S/O.PAPPUKUTTY ASARI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

4. SURESH, CONVENOR INTUC, MOONNUMUKKU UNIT

5. MANIRAJAN,CONVENOR, CITU,

6. RAJESH, CONVENOR, CITU MOONNUMUKKU

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :11/08/2009

 O R D E R
                P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.

                     -------------------------------

                      W.P.(C) No. 18041 OF 2009

                     -------------------------------

                  Dated this the 11th August, 2009

                            J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

Petitioner is running a granite quarry after obtaining

valid licence from the authorities. Alleging obstruction to the

work by party respondents 4 to 6 and seeking police protection,

this writ petition is filed.

2. Heard both sides. We find that there is a labour

dispute pending before the District Labour Officer. The disposal of

this writ petition will not stand in the way of the said dispute

being resolved in accordance with law. However, there cannot be

any physical obstruction caused to the work being carried on by

the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes that for the work in the

quarry, members of party respondents 4 to 6 will be engaged by

him. This is recorded. If there is any dispute as to whether the

petitioner could use machinery for a portion of his work, that will

W.P.(C) No.18041 of 2009

2

be decided by the District Labour Officer, after hearing all

concerned.

3. In such circumstances, until such time the matter

is settled, the status quo as on today should continue and the

petitioner will engage members of respondents 4 to 6 for the

work in the quarry. Further, there will be a direction to the police

to see that no obstruction is caused to the work connected with

the establishment of the petitioner and if there is any

obstruction, the same shall be removed. This will not stand in

the way of the petitioner using any machinery for any portion of

the work unless it is decided otherwise by the District Labour

Officer.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE.

nj.