Kerala High Court
Govindan vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17535 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
GOVINDAN
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.MAYANKUTTY, KUNNATH HOUSE, MALAYAKODE,
KODUVAYUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678101
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678506
4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678506
5 THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR
KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ULLOOR
GARDEN, PAROTTUKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695044
6 THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR
KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, NURANI P.O,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
7 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER
CIVIL STATION COMPLEX, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
8 KUNJU
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.KARUPPAN, SNEHA HOUSE, PALAKULAMBU,
VANDITHAVALAM P.O, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678534
9 PARTHAN
S/O.SHANMUGHAN, PULINKAVU, VANDITHAVALAM P.O,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678534
WP(C) NO. 17535 OF 2024 2
10 DESIYA KALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI FEDERATION
(INTUC)
CONGRESS OFFICE, NENMARA, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
SRI.R.VELAYUDHAN, PIN - 678508
SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY - SC
SMT.REKHA C. NAIR - SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17535 OF 2024 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be the licencee of certain toddy shops
within the Kollengode Excise Range - one of which is toddy shop No.19.
He says that he had disengaged one of his employees, namely, the 8 th
respondent, who turned 59 years in age on account of ill health and
because he has attained the age of superannuation; but that the said
person is demanding that he should engage the 9th respondent, who is
his brother's son, as a substitute. He alleges that the afore unfair
demand of the 8th respondent has now been taken upon themselves by
the Trade Unions and that they are impelling consistent threat and
intimidation to him, thus constraining him to have approached the 3rd
respondent - Station House Officer through Ext.P2 complaint seeking
protection. He alleges that, however, no action has been taken on
Ext.P2 until now, thus leaving him no other option but to approach this
Court seeking necessary orders.
2. Sri.Renil Anto Kandamkulathy - learned Standing Counsel for
respondent Nos.5 and 6, submitted that, as is evident from the afore
narrative of the facts, the disputes between the parties are in the realm
of labour jurisprudence and will have to be resolved through the
process of law. He added that it is for the Labour Department to now
intervene and take necessary action.
3. Smt.Rekha C.Nair - learned Senior Government Pleader, also
submitted that the disputes impelled by the petitioner are not ones that
can be resolved by the Police; but that they are ensuring that it does not
degenerate into a situation where law and order is threatened. She
concluded saying that the Police Authorities will abide by any directions
to be issued by this Court.
4. I notice from the file that even though the party respondents
have been validly served through a special messenger, they have
chosen neither to be present in person, or to be represented through
counsel; inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have
nothing to offer in opposition to the allegations impelled by the
petitioner.
5. As matters now stand, it is virtually conceded that there are
disputes between the petitioner and the 8th respondent - who is stated
to have been his earlier employee; but these are not matters that can be
evaluated or resolved by this Court, while acting under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. As rightly argued by Sri.Renil Anto
Kandamkulathy, the competent Authorities under the Labour
Department may be enjoined to look into these aspects, as and when
they are projected before them.
6. As far as the Police are concerned, it is their duty to ensure that
law and order is maintained and that none of the parties are allowed to
take law into their own hands. They are also obligated to make sure
that the internecine disputes between the parties do not degenerate
into a situation where there would be infraction of peace.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition, directing the
3rd respondent to ensure that the lives of the petitioner, as also the
party respondents, are adequately protected from each other and that
none of them are allowed to take any action which is in violation of law.
The said Officer will make sure that law and order is maintained
continually in the vicinity and these directions will be overseen by the
2nd respondent - Deputy Superintendent of Police, without fail.
As far as the party respondents are concerned, all their
contentions are left open, as also their liberties and remedies, including
before the competent Labour Authorities, if available in law.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/21.5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17535/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
05.01.2024 IN WP(C)NOS.25485/2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 03.05.2024
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH
COPIES TO RESPONDENTS 2 AND 4
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER 18.10.2023 IN WP(C)
NO.22142 OF 2023
