Disposed

Chandrika Shaji v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC17 Mar 2014WP(C)/6786/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a gas distributor regarding a labour dispute. The Court declined to adjudicate the wage dispute pending before the Labour Officer, directing the police to interfere only if a cognizable offence was committed or attempted by the workers. Thus, the writ petition was disposed of without granting specific relief.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing the respondent Police only to interfere if any cognizable offence is committed or attempted by the party respondents.

Chandrika Shaji Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/26TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 6786 of 2014 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

CHANDRIKA SHAJI, AGED 52 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF CHITTOORAPPAN INDANE SERVICES, EDEKUNNAM, CHERANELLOOR, RESIDING AT SINDHOORAM NIVAS, KELAMANGALAM THUNDIL, CHERANELLOOR-682 027.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION-682 027.

¶11

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PIN-682 018.

¶12

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LAW & ORDER ), KOCHI CITY-682 011.

¶13

4. MURALEEDHARAN, VELIYATH HOUSE, VAALAM, CHERANELLOOR-682 027.

¶14

5. KISHORE,S/O.RAVEENDRAN,

¶15

OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, D.M.NAGAR,

¶16

EDAPPALLY-682 024.

¶17

6. VINOD,SOUTHPARAMBIL HOUSE, DAVASWAMPADAM, VARAPUZHA,PIN-683 517.

¶18

7. N.S.BABU,NIKATHIL HOUSE,

¶19

AMBALAKADAVU, CHERANELLOOR-682 027.

¶20

8. RADHAKRISHNAN,

¶21

KUDUKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANNAMTHURUTHU, VARAPUZHA-683 517.

¶22

9. ALI, GAS SUPPLY BOY, CHITOORAPPAN INDANE SERVICES, EDEKUNNAM, CHERANELLOOR-682 027.

sts

2/-

-2-

WP(C)NO.6786/2014

¶27

10. SANTHOSH, GAS SUPPLY BOY, CHITTOORAPPAN INDANE SERVICES, EDEKUNNAM, CHERANELLOOR-682 027.

¶28

R1 TO R3 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE R4 TO R10 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

sts

¶31

WP(C).No. 6786 of 2014 (W)

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶34

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 6.3.2014 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J.

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 6786 OF 2014

¶42

- - - - Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2014

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Manjula Chellur, C.J.

¶45

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader as well as learned counsel appearing for party respondents.

¶46

Petitioner is conducting business in

¶47

distribution of gas cylinders under Indian Oil Corporation along with her son. According to her, at the hands of respondents 2 to 4 they are not able to carry on their work efficiently. It is further contended that one Babu, 7^th respondent was denied work on account of misconduct of theft of gas cylinder, therefore other respondents took up the cause of Babu and they are obstructing the distribution work of the petitioner.

¶48

On the other hand, party respondents contend

¶49

that they are paid meager salary, i.e. 1,000/- as against 3150/- per month as per the Circular. In this regard

¶50

WP(C) No. 6786 of 2014

¶51

-:2:-

¶52

dispute is pending before Labour Officer concerned who is yet to take decision. Government Pleader also confirms the said fact that regarding payment of wages, there seems to be some misunderstanding between the petitioner and party respondents.

¶53

If any dispute is pending before the Labour Officer, same will take its own course and we need not opine one or the other way. So far as law and order problem created at the godown of the petitioner, if party respondents obstruct the work of distribution in any manner, resorting to illegal action, then alone Police shall interfere and do the needful. However, party respondents counsel submits that they are not creating any obstruction and further they are ready to do the work. According to the petitioner, except 7^th respondent, they have no objection to engage other workers.

¶54

In the light of above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent Police only to interfere

¶55

WP(C) No. 6786 of 2014

¶56

-:3:-

¶57

if any cognizable offence is committed or attempted to commit on the part of party respondents.

¶58

Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.

¶59

A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

¶60

ttb/17/03

Chandrika Shaji v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrika Shaji v. Sub Inspector 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

C.T.Chacko Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-1(1)

M/S Amar Timber Traders Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Hotel & Allied Trades Pvt.Ltd Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I (1) Ernakulam

M/S Trinity Arcade Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assist Commissioner of Police Commissioner'S Office Thrikkakara

Tomy Vs Sub Inspector of Police