PATHANAPURAM TALUK P. W. CONGRESS Vs. SALIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by respondents 4, 5, 6 and 8 in OP No. 1011 of 1990 - U. The dispute relates to 'labhavihitham' said to be a customary payment made at the time of cutting the rubber trees and removing them. It is the claim of the appellants - Trade Union that they are entitled to be paid 'labhavihitham' as part of a settlement which is said to be in force. They claimed that unless the 'labhavihitham' is paid, as per the settlement, they would not allow the petitioner (purchaser of the trees) to cut and remove the rubber trees. Considering the defiant attitude of the trade unions, the purchaser of the trees Mr. S. Salim filed OP No. 1011 of 1990 - U seeking police protection.

(2.) The learned Single Judge gave notice to the Government Pleader and obtained a detailed report from the 11th respondent in the OP. The Regional Joint Labour Commissioner - and then came to the conclusion that this is a fit case, where the police protection sought for should be granted. The operative portion of the single Judge's order reads as follows :

(3.) In this appeal, the appellants' counsel Shri. K. Balakrishnan contends that 'labhavihitham' is a customary payment and the trade unions are entitled to the amount by virtue of both a customary practice and also by way of settlements. He claims that non payment of this money amounts to variation of conditions of service. Hence the police protection should not have been granted, unless the 'labhavihitham' is paid to the present appellants.