Kerala High Court
Velumurugan vs Circle Inspector Of Police on 8 March, 2010
Bench: K.M.Joseph, M.L.Joseph Francis
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 446 of 2010(E)
1. VELUMURUGAN,HOUSE NO.324,KOVILKADAVU.PO,
... Petitioner
2. K.JAYAPAL,HOUSE NO.324,KOVILKADAVU.P.O,
3. N.BINU,HOUSE NO.324,KOVILKADAVU.P.O,
4. C.PALANISWAMY,HOUSE NO.213,KOVILKADAVU
5. DURAI PANDY,HOUSE NO.28,WARD NO.III,
6. M.EASWARAN,KOVILKADAVU,SAHAYAGIRI.P.O,
7. M.MANI,HOUSE NO.10/370,KOVILKADAVU.P.O,
8. R.SAKTHIVEL,HOUSE NO.10/370,KOVILKADAVU
Vs
1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MUNNAR POLICE
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MARAYUR POLICE
3. ASHRAF,S/O.KAJA MAIDEEN,ASHRAF MANZIL,
4. MURUGAYYA,S/O.VELU,KGP NO.8/262,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.NAGARESH
For Respondent :SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :08/03/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 446 of 2010 E
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Joseph, J.
The prayer in the writ petition is one for police protection. Briefly put the case of the petitioners is as follows:-
Petitioners 1 to 8 are registered head load workers, working in Kovilkadavu Town in Idukki district. Ext.P1 is produced as true copies of identity cards issued to petitioners 1 to 6. The petitioners are members of BMS union. On 24-11-2009, there was some dispute between two drivers. It is stated that the petitioners have nothing to do with that dispute. There was a physical clash between the BMS and CITU unions. It is stated that after the incident, one Rafeek belonging to CITU union was found missing. The dead body of Rafeek was found. There were large scale violent incidents between BJP supporters on the one side and CPM and NDF on the other side. Ext.P2 is the copy of the FIR lodged in relation to missing of late Rafeek. Seven persons belonging to BJP were made accused and Ext.P3 is the remand WPC.446/2010 : 2 : application made by the 1st respondent. The petitioners have nothing to do with the clashes nor are they accused in the said crime. It is alleged that cases have been registered against the workers on either side. Some of the petitioners were also implicated in some cases, it is stated, and they were enlarged on bail. The petitioners are natives of Tamil Nadu. They went back to Tamil Nadu fearing prosecution. It is further stated that when they came back to resume work, respondents 3 to 6, who are leaders of CPM, NDF and INTUC, obstructed the petitioners and threatened the petitioners that if they come again in the area, they will be ruthlessly dealt with and killed and that the petitioners will not be permitted to do head load work in the area ever again. Fearing violence, the petitioners returned. The petitioners thereafter filed Ext.P4 complaint.
2. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit.
3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties including the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 to 5 as also 6th respondent would submit that the petitioners have not made the necessary persons as parties to the writ petition, namely the WPC.446/2010 : 3 : Vyaparivyavasayi Ekopana Samithy Unit. According to the petitioners, members of the Vyaparivyavasayi Ekopana Samithy are permitting the petitioners to work. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that actual obstruction is being made by respondents 3 to 6, who are CPM/NDF supporters. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent also submits that if this Court is inclined to grant police protection under the guise of the orders of protection, the petitioners should not obstruct work of the members of the 6th respondent. The learned Government Pleader would submit that there is no law and order. It is common case that the scheme is not applicable in the area. It is also not disputed that in such an area where the scheme is not made applicable, an employer has the right to choose the registered workers. In such circumstances, if the members of the Vyaparivyavasayi Ekopana Samithy are prepared to engage the petitioners, none of the party respondents have a legal right to obstruct the petitioners engaged by the concerned employers.
4. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:-
If the members of the Vyaparivyavasayi Ekopana Samithy WPC.446/2010 : 4 : are prepared to engage the petitioners as head load workers and if the party respondents or their members obstruct the petitioners in carrying out the work, the 1st and 2nd respondents will provide adequate and effective protection to the petitioners for carrying out their work. However, we make it clear that under the guise of this order, the petitioners will not obstruct the members of the 6th respondent from doing their work.
Sd/-
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sd/-
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge