JOY MATHEW Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When C.M.P. 33615/88 came up for orders, counsel appearing on either side wanted the original petition itself to be disposed of. Accordingly, after hearing them in detail, I am disposing of the original petition itself.

(2.) Petitioner is having a factory engaged in the manufacture of cement hollow bricks. That factory started functioning on 11-11-1988. Petitioner has 7 workers in the establishment. Of them, M/s. K. C. Ayyappan and K.T. Thankappan are engaged for loading and unloading work. Raw materials like cement, sand and metal are brought to the establishment in lorries. They are unloaded by the above mentioned workers. Finished articles namely, cement hollow bricks are loaded in the vehicles by those employees. Functioning of the factory proceeded smoothly till 2-12-1988. At about 9 a.m. on that day 4 persons came to the petitioner's establishment stating that they are the loading and unloading workers in the area, that they are to attend to the loading and unloading work in the petitioner's establishment and that they will not allow the petitioner's employees to do the said work. At about 11 a.m. on that day a lorry came to the gate of the establishment to load cement hollow bricks. The vehicle was obstructed. At the intervention of Sri T. M. Meethian Ex-M.L. A. the obstruction was lifted. On 3-12-1988, when obstruction was caused by certain outsiders, petitioner complained to the 3rd respondent. Ext. P1 is the copy of the petition filed before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent came to the establishment and advised the people gathered there to desist from causing any obstruction. When obstructions were caused on 9th and 10th December, 1988, complaints were made to the 3rd respondent. On those days women were also in the gathering for obstructing the ingress and egress of the vehicle to and from the petitioner's establishment. The 3rd respondent, it is alleged, expressed his inability to interfere with their activities because of the absence of women police constables. Petitioner is stated to have given a complaint to the 2nd respondent on 16-12-1988. That did not bear any fruit. According to the petitioner, some leaders of Marxist Communist Party met him on 17th and asked him to yield to the demand of the Union, that all the loading and unloading work should be allowed to be done by the members of the Union and that the regular workers of the establishment should not be engaged to do such work. The petitioner expressed his inability to accede to that demand. Petitioner approached respondents 1 to 3 for effective protection in carrying on the business. They are not affording any protection. Consequently, the business, according to the counsel, has been closed down on 20-12-1988. On these averments petitioner has approached this court inter alia praying for the issuance of a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection to run the establishment with his workmen without any obstruction from the 4th respondent and its followers.

(3.) The Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural, Alwaye, has filed a statement admitting receipt of Ext. P1 petition. According to him, on receiving the said petition the Sub Inspector of Police, Kothamangalam, along with policemen went to the spot, that the persons gathered there had not caused any obstruction, that on enquiry it was revealed that they gathered there in order to get some work in the company which is newly opened, that the Sub Inspector of Police directed them to approach the Labour Office, that the persons gathered there immediately dispersed and that if any complaint as mentioned in the O.P. has been received before any of the officers certainly necessary action would have been taken.