M.B.JAGALSAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to afford sufficient and adequate police protection to the petitioner and his workers in nexus with the construction work site of the petitioner at BPCL STF Puthuvypeen.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner is working as Site in -Charge and Supervisor. He is authorised by the Candela Engineering Corporation, Door No.III/246, Maniyattu Building, Kuruppampady P.O., Perumbavoor for signing all the legal documents, other documents and material pass for the successful completion of the assigned work of the aforesaid company. The company of the petitioner obtained a sub -contract work for pile foundation and erection of 3 Nos., 30 Mtr. High Mast and Earthing of High Mast of 4 Nos. at Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. STF Puthuvypeen from Bajaj Electrical Limited, CRL, House, Ernakulam as per PO No.117643 on 2.8.2012. On the basis of Ext.P2, petitioner has started discussion with trade unions for availing of labours for the aforesaid works. After many discussions the trade union leaders agreed to avail labours on the basis of existing memorandum of settlement which signed in between CINDA Engineering and Construction Pvt.Ltd and Trade union leaders. After the completion of prescribed rules and regulation, petitioner has started the piling work on 19.11.2012. While the work is in progress on 25.11.2012, respondent No.4 who is the local leader of trade union of BMS in that locality and his henchman approached the petitioner, obstructed the work and compelled to engage more labours and demanded much more wages for their labours apart from the agreed memorandum of settlement. As a result, the petitioner was ready to engage their men in the construction works without any more wages other than the memorandum of settlement. But, the labours of other trade unions denied the engagement of BMS trade union labours out of the ratio of the settlement. This has caused enmity to the respondent No.4 and his henchman towards the petitioner. From that day onwards, they have started to harass the petitioner by way of obstructing the construction activities. The respondent No.4 along with his henchman came before the petitioner and his company staff and told that they shall never permit any one to work peacefully. The petitioner is losing more than ten thousand of rupees as wage of company employees and rent of the machineries. Not only that the agreement between the company and Bajaj Electricals Ltd is to complete the work within a period of 90 days from the date of agreement. After the specified period of 90 days the petitioner's company is losing the money as prescribed in the agreement. Petitioner preferred complaint to the 3rd respondent and copy of the petition was forwarded to the 2nd respondent and requested police protection. But, the 3rd respondent told that they cannot provide protection because it is a labour dispute. No action has been taken so far. Hence, the petition.

(3.) A counter affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent wherein it is inter alia stated as follows: