PEETHAMBARAN Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent in this Writ Appeal filed the Original Petition before this Court seeking police protection to him, to his workers, supervisors and his materials from the Appellant Unions (respondents 3 and 4 in the Original Petition). He was awarded the work of "construction of 350 bedded ward for Government Ayurveda College Hospital, Puthiyakavu at Tripunithura". After completing the preliminary works, he started to engage labourers for doing different works. He put up a notice (Ext. P1) inviting registration of workers who are interested to do different works. According to him, in response to Ext. P1 notice, about 150 works registered their names for different works and he started the work on 6.1.1999. At that time third and fourth respondents and a group of people came to the site and obstructed the workers and manhandled one of the workers and threatened the supervisor. Petitioner approached the Police for protection by Ext. P2. Even though Sub Inspector of Police came to the site and removed some of the obstructors, threat continued. Because of that, work was stopped.

(2.) Since Police was not able to provide adequate police protection, he filed the Writ Petition for police protection. Second appellant union filed counter affidavit stating that in view of Ext. R4(a) agreement, petitioner is bound to engage workers in the ratio of 1:1:1, that is, one workman to be employed by the first appellant union and second workman can be employed by the second appellant union and third workman can be employed by the management and entire workers should be appointed in the above ratio of 1:1:1. In effect, the petitioner management can appoint only one-third workers and it is the right of the two unions to appoint two-third of the workers. It was further contended that since the Writ Petition was filed suppressing this material, petition should be dismissed and police protection should not be given to affect the rights of the unions on the basis of Ext. R4(a) agreement. After hearing the parties in detail, the learned Judge was of the view that trade unions cannot act as recruiting agencies. The learned Judge held as follows:

(3.) This judgment is challenged by the Appellants Unions on the ground that Ext. R4(a) agreement was not challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition and it was not even disclosed in the original petition and, therefore, the original petition ought to have been dismissed. It was further contended that the Unions have got a say in the appointment of employees and the Union's rights are affected by the police protection given. It was also averred that petitioner is giving wages below the minimum wages prescribed and petitioner should not be allowed to exploit labour and the rights of the Unions will be affected if the judgment is not set aside. On the contrary, the respondent contended that Ext. R4(a) agreement is not applicable to the area in question. It is applicable only in Ernakulam zone and therefore, there is no question of disclosing the same in the writ petition. They are paying much more than the minimum wages and there is effective machinery under the Minimum Wages Act for checking the same and such allegations have no force. Even though the workmen employed by the petitioner can join the unions of their choice, unions cannot dictate the employer whom they should employ. There are many unions functioning in the area. But, if the contentions of the appellants unions are accepted, only members of their union or people recommended by them can be appointed. It will affect the fundamental rights of all other unions and persons who are not members of appellants unions. It is for the management to make appointment and unions have no matter of right to appoint employees and police protection was rightly given.