VYPPIN BAR AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. BHARGAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT appeals arise out of the judgment in O. P. 9088/1993. Respondents 6, 8 and 9 in the said Original Petition are the appellants in Writ Appeal 1545/1993 and Writ Appeal 1554/1993 is at the instance of the 7th respondent. The appellants challenge the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the police officers to ensure that no obstruction are caused to the running of foreign liquor shop No. 129 of Njarackal Range by respondents 6 and 7 and their members and associates. Respondents 6 and 7 are two trade unions of abkari workers. In O. P. 5543/1994, licensee of Shop No. 129 of Njarackal Range for the year 1994-95 seeks police protection for carrying on the business without any obstruction from the members of respondents 6 and 7 trade unions. Since the issues that arise for consideration in these matters are one and the same, we consider it advantageous to dispose of these matters by a common judgment.

(2.) FOR understanding the true nature of the dispute between the parties, it is necessary to refer to the facts alleged by the petitioner in O. P. 9088/1993. It is as follows: Petitioner along with another took in auction the right to vend Indian made foreign liquor shop No. 129 of Njarackal Range for the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994. In addition to the bid amount of Rs. 8,02,000/-, a sum of Rs. 50,000/was remitted for getting permission for retail sale of foreign liquor in the shop. On getting licence for the above purpose, business was started with petitioner's workers. Workers of former licensee unauthorisedly and illegally trespassed into the shop, obstructed petitioner's workers from vending foreign liquor and claimed that they are entitled to work in the said shop. Altogether there are twelve workers appointed by respondents 6 and 7 to do the work in the petitioner's liquor shop without her consent. Respondents 8 and 9 claimed the post of Cashier and Manager respectively in the shop. Members of respondents 6 and 7 were the workers of the former licensee. Their engagement by the former licensee could have been only for one year. As their services stood terminated on the expiry of the period of licence, they cannot claim any right to work under the subsequent licensee. An employee who was engaged for a term has to vacate the employment on the expiry of the term. Petitioner is a licensee for the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994. So, the previous employees cannot claim any right of employment under the petitioner. Respondents 8 and 9 forcibly took the post of Cashier and Manager of the liquor shop of which the petitioner is the licensee. They are illegally collecting the sale amount and are not giving proper accounts. Petitioner is not in a position to carry on the sale of Indian made foreign liquor in the shop because of the atrocities committed by respondents 6 to 9 and their sympathizers. On these averments they approached this Court in-ter-alia praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the police officers to stop the illegal and unauthorised acts of the members of respondents 6 and 7 trade unions.

(3.) DETAILED counter affidavits were filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 6, 8 and 9, the stand taken was that members of their trade union were workers under the previous contractor and therefore they are entitled to be appointed by the petitioner, who is the licensee for the succeeding year. It was their contention that when one contractor is succeeded by another, the successor is obliged to engage the workers who were employed by the previous contractor. It was contended that employees engaged during the year 1992-93 have a right to continue in service when a new licensee acquires the right to vend liquor for the subsequent year, namely 1993-94. The service of workers under the previous contractor cannot be terminated by the new licensee with a view to engage new workers of his choice. 6th respondent even went to the extent of stating that respondents 8 and 9 are entitled to continue as Cashier and Manager of the Shop. 7th respondent, the other trade union of abkari workers, in the counter affidavit virtually supported the contentions raised by the 6th respondent, But, it did not support the view of the 6th respondent that the management of the shop and the cash collection should be entrusted with the workers attached to the shop. It was stated by 7th respondent that employees in charge of cash and management of the shop would not become permanent workers in the shop to be in charge of cash and management. It was the contention of the 7th respondent that workers who are engaged in the shop by the prior contractor for works other than collection of cash and general management are entitled to be engaged by the successor contractor as well.