IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 12436 of 2007(E)
1. TIP TOP FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
For Respondent :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :18/08/2007
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
---------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 12436 of 2007-E
---------------------------------
Dated 18th August, 2007.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner is a furniture manufacturing unit
represented by its Proprietor. This writ petition is filed, seeking the
following reliefs:
“(i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st
respondent to render adequate police protection to the
petitioner for peacefully loading and unloading the
timber/wood/furniture products in the Tip Top Furniture
International showroom in Building No.II/262
E,F,G,H,K,L,M,N,O,P, K.K.Towers, Muttom,
Choornikara Grama Panchayat by engaging its own
permanent headload workers;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st
respondent to render adequate police protection to the lives
and property of the petitioner and their workers.”
The case of the petitioner is that it has started a unit at Muttom in
Choornikara Grama Panchayat. The unit has its own registered
headload workers to do the loading and unloading work inside the unit.
But, the 2nd respondent Union is causing obstruction, claiming that its
WP(C) No.12436/07
: 2 :
members are entitled to get the work of loading and unloading in the
unit. According to the petitioner, as long as it has got registered
headload workers, it is entitled to engage them. The police was moved.
When there was no action from the part of the police, this writ petition is
filed, seeking the above quoted reliefs.
2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, resisting
the prayers in the writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent pointed out that the members of the 2nd
respondent were doing the unloading work of the petitioner for the last
two years. Now, employment is denied to them and work is sought to be
done, using its permanent workers. The learned Government Pleader,
upon instructions, submitted that the police did not interfere in the matter
and the parties were directed to approach the conciliation machinery.
4. This Court has already granted interim order on
11.4.2007, granting protection to the petitioner to do loading and
unloading work, provided it is employing registered headload workers
for the same. We feel that the said order should continue until the 2nd
WP(C) No.12436/07
: 3 :
respondent establishes its right through the statutory forum, to get the
loading and unloading work in the petitioner’s unit. It is ordered
accordingly and the writ petition is disposed of.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.
nm.