Disposed

Kollayil Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd. No.T 253 D, (Apcos), v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Aug 2023WP(C)/17106/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ protection against headload workers union threats hindering cattle feed unloading. Court acknowledged past threats but noted protection is available if threats exist under law and dismissed pending applications.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; pending interlocutory applications dismissed; protection available if threats exist.

Kollayil Milk Producers Co-Operative Society… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17106 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

KOLLAYIL MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.T 253 D, (APCOS), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DHANUVACHAPURAM,DHANUVACHAPURAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695503.

¶8

BY ADVS. R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS SRI.K.C.HARISH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTERS,VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶12

3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PARASSALA POLICE STATION, PARASSALA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695502.

¶13

4 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION,PARASSALA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695502.

¶14

5 HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KAUSTHUBAM COMPLEX,CHENTHITTA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695036.

¶15

WP(C) NO. 17106 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

6 GOPAN, CONVENER, HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION(CITU), DHANUVACHAPURAM UNIT, DHANUVACHAPURAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695503.

¶18

BY ADV SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC FOR R5

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SR GP SRI JUSTIN JACOB

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C) NO. 17106 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Petitioner is stated to have approached

¶26

this Court with the following prayer:

¶27

“To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 1 to 4 to afford adequate and effective protection to do the unloading of cattle feed by the members of petitioner society without being obstructed by 6th respondent and persons claiming under him;”

¶28

Aforementioned prayer was made on the premise that petitioner Society is not situated in a scheme covered area and therefore, members of the Union are threatening petitioner's employees and persons engaged by them for unloading cattle feeds. In view of the threat, complaints were submitted to respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶29

The aforementioned cause of action basically was on the basis of the notice, Ext.P1, by the Union. This Court had given protection to the petitioner vide order dated 20.8.2020. The

¶30

WP(C) NO. 17106 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

same reads as under:

¶33

“Notice before admission to the respondents. Learned government pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 4. Sri.Thomas Abraham, the learned standing counsel takes notice for the 5th respondent. Issue urgent notice by speed post to the 6th respondent.

¶34

Sri.Thomas Abraham, the learned standing counsel submits on instructions that the petitioner society is not situated in a scheme covered area. In that view of the matter, the respondents 3 and 4 shall afford effective protection to the members of the society to unload the cattle feed without any obstruction being caused by the 6th respondent or any person claiming under him.”

¶35

No doubt the Unions with whom headload workers are registered cannot compel the employer to engage workers from their unions, particularly when the work requires special care and precaution. The aforementioned observation, in my view, no longer res integra. It has become a practice among the unions to extend threat and cause hindrance for smooth functioning of office/factory, where the

¶36

WP(C) NO. 17106 OF 2020

¶37

¶38

employer engaged their own workmen.

¶39

For reasons aforementioned, I am of the view that if there is any such threat to the petitioner or their workmen, though that would not be existing now since the matter is of the year 2020, they are at liberty to seek protection for their workers engaged in unloading of cattle feed, in accordance with law.

¶40

Writ petition is disposed of as above. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, in the writ petition would stand dismissed.

¶41

Sd/AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶42

¶43

WP(C) NO. 17106 OF 2020

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17106/2020

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.07.2020 BY 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.9.2015 IN W.P.(C)NO.26690/2015.

Kollayil Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd. No.T 253 D, (Apcos), v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kollayil Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd. No.T 253 D, (Apcos), v. the State of Kerala

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

Kamarudheen Vs Somalatha

Anupama Vs the Superintendent of Police

Selin J. Vs State Police Chief

Vasu Panicker Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Sukumaran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Javeen Mathew Vs Vijayapuram Grama Panchayath