Disposed

M/S.Orma Marbles v. Dist.Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC10 Aug 2010WP(C)/17667/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection for an industrial unit. The petitioner sought protection against obstruction by other unions. The court observed that the respondent unions had no legal right to obstruct and granted an interim order making the protection absolute.

What did the court decide?

Interim order directing protection absolute to ensure smooth functioning of business without interference.

M/S.Orma Marbles Vs Dist.Superintendent of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 17667 of 2010(G) --------------------------

¶3

PETITIONER: ---------------

¶4

M/S.ORMA MARBLES AND SANITARIES, 1/12, N.H.ROAD, VALAVANADU, POLETHAT, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, LIJO JOSEPH.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB SMT.NISHA JOHN

¶6

RESPONDENTS: ---------------

¶7

DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU), MARARIKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, D.M.BABU.

¶11

POTHUMARALATH LOADING AND UNLOADING WORKERS UNION (AITUC), MARARIKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, V.J.ANTONY.

¶12

LOADING AND UNLOADING WORKERS UNION (INTUC), MARARIKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.B.PAUL.

¶13

LOADING AND UNLOADING WORKERS UNION

¶14

(UTUC), MARARIKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAMACHANDRAN.

¶15

GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1-3 ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN FOR R4 TO 7

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 17667 of 2010(G)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER THE KVAT RULES DT.25.8.2008.

¶21

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPIES OF IDENTITY CARDS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S WORKERS.

¶22

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR POLICE PROTECTION DT,.4.6.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶24

// TRUE COPY//

¶25

K. M. JOSEPH &

¶26

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶27

- - - - W.P.(C).No. 17667 of 2010 G

¶28

- - - - Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Joseph, J.

¶31

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the

¶32

following relief:

¶33

“to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner to carry on loading and unloading operations with petitioner's permanent registered workers and cranes and for the smooth functioning of the business without any interference or obstruction from all or any member of respondents 4 to 7 or anybody acting under them.”

¶34

Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows.

¶35

Petitioner seeks police protection to carry out loading and

¶36

W.P.(C).No. 17667 of 2010

¶37

unloading work with his permanent registered workers. Ext.P2 series are the identity cards issued in favour of the permanent workers of the petitioner to do loading and unloading work in the petitioner's unit.

¶38

Learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7 would submit that they have no legal right in the matter and they have no right to obstruct. Learned counsel further submits that respondents 4 to 7 are

¶39

also being engaged. This contention is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶40

However, in the light of the fact that respondents 4 to 7 have

¶41

no legal right to obstruct in view of Ext.P2 series, we dispose of the Writ Petition by making the interim order directing protection absolute.

¶42

Judge

¶43

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)

¶44

Judge

¶45

M/S.Orma Marbles v. Dist.Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Orma Marbles v. Dist.Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajil Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Chandran.N.R Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Sivanandan Vs State of Kerala & 19 Others

Mammi Haji Vs Si of Police,Thirurangadi

R.Jyotheendran Vs State of Kerala

P.Vijayakumari Vs S.P Palakkad