Disposed

P.S.Binu and Another v. P.G.Sibymon & Others

Kerala HC22 Nov 2010WP(C)/28400/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, brothers running stage carriage services, sought police protection from threats by a daily wager worker and his union. The court directed the Commissioner of Police to investigate complaints of obstruction and afford protection if genuine.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 5th respondent to look into complaints of obstruction and afford protection if genuine.

P.S.Binu and Another Vs P.G.Sibymon & Others — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶5

MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶6

WP(C).No. 28400 of 2010(Y)

PETITIONER(S):

P.S.BINU,PAZHOOR HOUSE, PALAMPARA,KANJIRAPALLY.

¶11

P.S.ANIL, PAZHOOR HOUSE, PALAMPARA,KANJIRAPALLY.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

¶15

P.G.SIBYMON,S/O.GOPALAN,POOTHAKUZHIYIL HOUSE,PAVATHODU, KANJIRAPALLY-686507.

¶16

SECRETARY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT WORKERS UNION,REGISTRATION NO.490/75 CITU,KALOOR BUS STAND, ERNAKULAM-682017..

¶17

DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,KOTTAYAM-686002.

¶18

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KANJIRAPALLY-686507..

¶19

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶20

R3 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WPC NO.28400 OF 2010:

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1.PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERMIT IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE NUMBER KL 34 5004. EXT.P1A.PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERMIT IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE NUMBER KL 34 9345. EXT.P1B.PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERMIT IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE KL 34 6136. EXT.P1C.PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERMIT IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE KL 34 7879. EXT.P2. PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.6.2010.

¶25

EXT.P3. PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4.PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶26

K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

¶27

¶28

W.P.(C) No.28400 of 2010-Y

¶29

Dated, this the 22^nd day of November, 2010

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

K.M.Joseph, J.

¶32

Petitioners have approached this court seeking police protection.

¶33

Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: Petitioners are brothers conducting stage carriage services. They are having permanent registered workers registered with Kerala Motor Transport Workers Fund and also with the Assistant Labour Officer. When their permanent workers are not well or takes leave, petitioners used to hire workers on daily wages. On a few occasions the Ist respondent was similarly employed on daily wages. But, he was a troubleshooter and always creates trouble one after another. He was convicted by the Sessions Court, for kicking out a passenger from a bus and sentenced for offences under Sec.308 and 323 of the IPC. Further his license was suspended. The Ist respondent has joined hands with the 2^nd respondent union who has no role to interfere and is threatening the petitioners of dire consequences if the Ist respondent is not given permanent employment. Petitioner has moved the 5^th respondent.

¶34

There is already an interim order. There is no

¶35

WPC No.28400/2010 -2-

¶36

appearance for respondents 1 and 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader.

¶37

In the circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ petition. As and when the petitioners complain of any obstruction of their stage carriage service by Ist respondent and members of 2^nd respondent before the 5^th respondent, we direct the 5^th respondent to look into the complaint and if the complaint is found to be genuine he shall afford protection to the petitioners as against the Ist respondent and members of the 2^nd respondent. We further make it clear that we have not pronounced on the rights of the Ist respondent if any, and it is open to the Ist respondent to take up the matter before any statutory authority. The statutory authority will be free to take a decision in the matter untrammelled by anything contained in this judgment.

¶38

(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.

¶39

(M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE.

¶40

P.S.Binu and Another v. P.G.Sibymon & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.Binu and Another v. P.G.Sibymon & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vincent Vs the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam

M.P.Abdul Razak Vs Hayarunnisa T.P. and Others

Vasumathy Vs Sumathy

Velayudhan Nadar Narayanan Nadar Vs Velayudhan Nadar Govindan Nadar

Bava Vs State of Kerala and Another

M. Nandakumar Vs Superintendent of Police