Walayar Steels Private Limited vs. The District Police Chief
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR THUR AY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 3597 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: WALAYAR STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTD BY ITS DIRECTOR, MRS. NASEEMA, ABDULLAKOYA, HAVING THE PLACE OF BUSINESS AT DEVELOPMENT PLOT, ANANTHAPURAM, KASARAGOD- 671321. BY ADVS. SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR SRI.C.M.ANDREWS SRI.SHYAM PADMAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, (SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE), OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PO.-R.D. NAGAR, KASARAGOD-671124. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUMBALA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD-671321. WP(C).No. 3597 of 2019 ..2.. 3 BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT SECRETARY, SREERAMAVADI, BANK ROAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 67121. 4 SECRETARY, BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), ANANTHAPURAM UNIT, NEAR ANANTHAPURAMA TEMPLE, KASARAGOD- 671321. ADDL. R5 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD HEAD OFFICE, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM- 682018 (ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08. 02.2019 IN IA.NO.1/2019) BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, KHWWB SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212) SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE SRI.T.C.KRISHNA OTHER PRESENT: SR.GP SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 3597 of 2019 ..3.. J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner has moved this Court with the following prayers: “a) A writ, order or Direction in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate form of writ, commanding the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to afford adequate police protection to the Petitioner
preventing,
criminal
and objectionable acts by the men and members of the trade union functioning under the Respondents Nos.3 and 4 and ensuring the smooth running of the trade/business of the Petitioner, in the factory premises situated in Ananthapuram, in Syrvey No.12/21 of Kannur Village, Kasaragod District, free from all kinds
of threat,
obstruction
or interreference from such men against the business of the petitioner or from staging any dharna or protest meetings in front of the gate of the factory premises belonging the Petitioners or its vicinity in such a way as to cause obstruction to the Petitioner's business establishment in any manner. b) Such other reliefs that the Petitioner may pray for and which this Honourable Court may deem it fit and proper to grant; c) Directing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to pay the costs of the above proceedings to the petitioner.”
When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 11.02.2019, the following
WP(C).No. 3597 of 2019 ..4.. order was passed: “Heard
Sri.P.T.Mohankumar,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Board and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that the place in question is not a scheme covered area. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 submits that the members of the union are having cards under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules and they are discharging the loading and unloading works in the area for quite long. However in so far as the place in question is not a scheme covered area the law stands settled by virtue of rulings of the Full Bench reported in Raghavan Vs. Superintendent of Police [1998 (2) KLT 732] [2004 (1) KLT 215 (FB)]. In the said circumstances, there will be an interim order as prayed for. The parties are required to complete the pleadings.”
On the last occasion, we took note of the submission made by Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel for respondents 3 & 4, that the said respondents were not indulging in any activities causing obstruction, but for a request as to whether some of the workers belonging to the Union also could be employed by the petitioner.
WP(C).No. 3597 of 2019 ..5..
The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits today, on the basis of instructions, that the request made by the respondent Union will definitely be considered and few workers will be accommodated to the possible extent, of course, depending upon the requirement and nature of the engagement. The said submission is recorded. Accordingly, the WP(C) is disposed of, making the interim order absolute. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE Bka/30.03.2019
WP(C).No. 3597 of 2019 ..6.. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KASARAGOD EXHIBIT P2OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE, ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DATED 26.9.2017 EXHIBIT P3OF THE BILLS, INVOICES AND CUSTOMS CLEARANCE RECEIPTS, DATED 30.1.2019 EXHIBIT P4OF THE BILLS, INVOICES AND CUSTOMS CLEARANCE RECEIPTS, DATED 31.1.2019 EXHIBIT P5OF THE BILLS, INVOICES AND CUSTOMS CLEARANCE RECEIPTS, DATED 1.2.2019 EXHIBIT P6OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S MANAGER TOT HE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPIES TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 2.2.2019 EXHIBIT P6 (a)OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.2.2019 EXHIBIT P6 (b)OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.