KOCHAYYAN SUBRAHMANIAN Vs. COCHIN CADALAS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in the writ petition. The writ petitioner is the first respondent. In the writ petition, the relief claimed was for grant of police protection by issue of a writ of mandamus against respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner also sought protection to its workers for carrying out the loading and unloading work in the factory of the petitioner at Brahmapuram, and for a direction for removal of all obstructions caused by the appellants and their followers in that behalf.

(2.) The writ petitioner has its registered office at Tripunithura and its factory at Brahmapuram. In the factory craft paper is manufactured, there are 32 workers in the factory, and there are four staff in the establishment. The above said workers are attending to all work in the factory, including loading and unloading of raw materials and finished goods. The raw materials are waste paper, chemicals and firewood. The waste paper bundles, chemicals and firewood are reaching the factory compound in lorries and vans and finished goods, paper reels are loaded into the vehicles. The production in the factory began in August, 1084, and it is the case of the petitioner that ever since then the workers in the factory are attending to loading and unloading work. The relationship between the workers in the factory and the petitioner has been cordial, and there are long-term settlements governing their relationship. But on 8th January, 1992, when loads of waste paper came to the factory in lorries from Willington Island at 6.30 p.m., and the factory workers were unloading the material, suddenly some people of the locality gathered at the factory gale and began obstructing the workers engaged in unloading the waste paper bags. This created a tense situation between the factory workers on the one hand and the obstructors on the other. The writ petitioner came to know of the names of some of the obstructors, that they belong to certain trade unions and three of such obstructors are respondents Nos. 4 to 6 in the writ petition (two appellants and another). The writ petitioner presented a petition to the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimugal (third respondent), and also before respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Assistant Commissioner of Police and Circle Inspector of Police). The third respondent assured the petitioner that if any obstruction is caused by outsiders in future it will be removed. The petitioner apprehended that there would be obstruction by the loading and. unloading workers of the locality and filed an application on 5th February, 1992, before the Sub Inspector of Police, the third respondent, praying for police protection. On22nd February, 1992, when loading of finished goods in lorries was taking place at 4 p.m., a gang of people said to be under the leadership of the fourth respondent in the writ petition and others came and demanded wages, and the lorry was not allowed to be removed from the factory site. The writ petitioner again went to the police station. Two constables were sent, and they released the lorry from the clutches of the gang under the leadership of the fourth respondent in the writ petition. The Director of the petitioner company met the Sub Inspector of Police, the third respondent on 24th February, 1992, and he promised assistance, but on 25th and 26th February, 1992, he pleaded helplessness on account of the prevailing situation. The petitioner then approached the higher authorities and then filed the present writ petition in this Court.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed before the learned single Judge by the appellants, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in the writ petition, stating that they represent the INTUC Union, and the fourth respondent is the General Secretary of the Union. It is stated that the statement of the writ petitioner that the company workers are doing loading and unloading work is wrong and is intended to avoid the headload workers who were carrying on the loading and unloading work. It is stated that the so-called factory workers of the writ petitioner are permanent factory employees. They are dealing with factory affairs. It is stated that the headload workers of the fourth respondent in the writ petition were dealing with the loading and unloading work of the petitioner's factory. It is stated that arrangement had been made for loading and unloading by employing three headload workers from INTUC every day and two headload workers from CITU every day. A list of 27 persons from among whom three from INTUC are being sent is given in the counter affidavit. There is no denial of allegation regarding obstruction made by the writ petitioner, and on the other hand, it is stated that the writ petitioner is trying to divide the interest of the working class and to have the work done by the factory employees with a view to cause loss to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and their followers. A reply affidavit has been filed by the writ petitioner.