IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2441 of 2010(E)
1. T.V.JAYAKRISHNAN
... Petitioner
2. M.NAZAR, LABOUR WELFARE OFFICER
Vs
1. SREEPRAKASH P.V, DAIVATHANKANDI HOUSE
... Respondent
2. RAJESH A, ALAKKAL HOUSE
3. BHANU T.C, SPINNING QUARTER NO.10
4. MANOJ KUMAR K,
5. SUNIL RAJ K, KOYILANDI HOUSE
6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
7. CIRCLE INPECTOR OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :10/02/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.2441 of 2010-E
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 10th day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioners seek the following relief:
“a). to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order directing respondents 6
and 7 to provide adequate and effective police
protection to the petitioner’s person and family
without any let or interference from respondents 1
to 5 their supporters and sympathizers.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as
follows:– Petitioners are the General Manager and the Labour
Welfare Officer of Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills, a
unit of National Textiles Corporation Limited under the Ministry
of Textiles, Government of India. It is the case of the
petitioners that the Ist respondent, a workman of the
establishment who was suspended from the service on
5.3.2009 along with respondents 2 to 5 had assaulted the
petitioners. It is stated that they were charge sheeted by
Exts.P1 to P5. It is stated that a criminal case is also
pending. It is further stated that the mill itself was closed and
resumed functioning only on the basis of the orders of this
Court. It is stated that a domestic enquiry was held against
WPCNo.2441/2010 -2-
respondents 1 to 5 and that disciplinary proceedings are being
finalised. Respondents 1 to 5, according to the petitioners,
have now started threatening the petitioners that petitioners
will be visited with dire consequences if any disciplinary action
is taken against them. Petitioners have filed Ext.P6
complaint before the 6th respondent.
3. Though served, there is no representation for
respondents 1 to 5. We have already passed an interim order.
We direct that as and when petitioners require protection as
against respondents 1 to 5, respondents 6 and 7 will provide
adequate and effective police protection for the personal
safety of the petitioners and their family members as against
respondents 1 to 5.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS