M/S Royal Infraconstru Ltd vs The Station House Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 13055 Ker

Kerala High Court

M/S Royal Infraconstru Ltd vs The Station House Officer on 23 May, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                          WP(C) NO. 17676 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

              M/S ROYAL INFRACONSTRU LTD.
              BUILDING NO.13/379, THAYYATHUSIVADAM, KUMBALAM,
              ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY THE PROJECT MANAGER AND
              AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.BARADA PRASAD BALABANTARAY, PIN -
              682506
              BY ADVS.
              BINOY VASUDEVAN
              P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM)
              K.V.RAJESWARI
              SREEJITH SREENATH
              P.SREEKUMAR (THOTTAKKATTUKARA)


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
              PANANGAD POLICE STATION,PANANGAD, PIN - 682036
     2        KUMABLAM MEKHALA SECTRETARY OF CITU
              BY NAME SRI.V.K.SANU, SON OF V.A.KUMARAN, 219,
              VADAKKANATTU HOUSE, NORTH KUMBALAM, PIN - 682506
     3        AREA SECRETARY OF INTUC
              BY NAME SRI.JOLLY,POVETHIL HOUSE,KUMBALAM, PIN - 682506
     4        SRIJITH PARAKKAD
              PARAKKAD HOUSE,KUMBALAM, PIN - 682506
     5        SURESH
              VADAKKECHITTAYIL, KUMBALAM, PIN - 682506
     6        HARSHAD ALI
              ARAYANTHAR HOUSE, NETTOOR REPRESENTATIVE OF SDPI UNION,
              PIN - 682040
     7        ALTHAF PUTHEZHATH
              PUTHEZHATH HOUSE,KUMBALAM, PIN - 682506
              BY ADVS.
              SATHEESH N
              T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
              P.K.IBRAHIM
              MANJULA NAIR(M-455)
              REVATHY M.A.(K/001160/2022)
     WP(C) NO. 17676 OF 2024
                                  2

           SNEHA BRIGIT PRINCE(K/282/2023)
           GREESHMA T.G.(K/002281/2022)
           PRIYA CAROL(K/000112/2019)
           K.P.AMBIKA(A-656)
           ZEENATH P.K.(K/001999/2023)
           JABEENA K.M.(K/002008/2023)
           ANAZ BIN IBRAHIM(K/2796/2023)




           SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, SENIOR G.P.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17676 OF 2024
                                 3

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be a company

registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and that

they have now been engaged by the Southern

Railway to complete certain works, including that

of bridges. They say that they are engaging their

own workers, in compliance with the provisions of

all applicable Statutes and Regulations; but are

now being obstructed, even violently, by members

of respondents 2 to 7 Unions, making untenable

claims, including that they and their members

alone should be engaged for the said works.

2. The petitioner argue that the afore

demands are wholly untenable and contrary to law;

and therefore, that they preferred Ext.P2

complaint before the police seeking protection,

which however, has not evoked sufficient

response; thus constraining them to approach this WP(C) NO. 17676 OF 2024

Court through this writ petition.

3. Interestingly, in response to the afore

submissions of Smt.K.V.Rajeswari - learned

counsel for the petitioner, Sri.N.Satheesan -

learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, submitted

that his client has not and will not obstruct any

activity of the petitioner, particularly because

their members are already being engaged by them.

4. Sri.Raman Kartha - learned counsel

appearing for respondents 4 and 5, however,

argued that this Writ Petition is premature and

unnecessary because, his clients have raised

complaints before the competent Authorities,

manifest from Ext.R4(c), notice, alleging that

the petitioner is not registered under the

provisions of the Building and other Construction

Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions

of Service) Act, 1996 ("Act" for short), nor are WP(C) NO. 17676 OF 2024

they engaging persons who have obtained

registration under the same. He submitted that

the competent Authority has already taken

cognizance of the said complaint, as is evident

from Ext.R4(c); and that it is immediately after

being called for hearing, that the petitioner has

approached this Court and attempted to obtain

orders, but without participating in it. He thus

prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

5. Sri.P.K.Ibrahim - learned counsel for the

6th respondent, adopted the afore submissions of

Sri.Raman Kartha and supplemented it saying that

the petitioner is acting illegally, by continuing

with the work without obtaining a registration

under the 'Act'. He relied upon Section 2(1)(j)

of the 'Act' to argue that the establishment of

the petitioner is one that comes within its

ambit; and contented that, therefore, without

having obtained registration under Rules 23 and WP(C) NO. 17676 OF 2024

26 of the Building and other Construction Workers

(Regulation of Employment and Conditions of

Service) Central Rules, 1998, they cannot

continue with the work. He also, therefore,

prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

6. Smt.Rekha C.Nair - learned Senior

Government Pleader, in response, submitted that

the police have already taken cognizance of the

petitioner's complaint and have intervened in the

matter, to ensure that neither they, or their

workers, are subjected to any criminal threat or

intimidation from any person, including the party

respondents. He submitted that, however, the

Police cannot enter into the merits of the

disputes between the parties and that these are

matters that may have to be resolved by them

through the alternative Forums, or before the

appropriate Authorities.

WP(C) NO. 17676 OF 2024

7. I have no doubt that the afore stand

adopted by the Police is the most apposite in the

given circumstances because, if, as stated by

some of the party respondents, the petitioner is

acting in violation of law, then the remedy for

them is to approach the competent Authorities,

which, at least one of them appear to have done,

as luculent from Ext.R4(b). As I have said above,

the specific argument of Sri.Raman Kartha,

representing respondents 4 and 5, is that it is

only after Ext.R4(c) notice was issued, that the

petitioner has approached this Court, but without

participating in the hearing. But, this again, is

a matter they will have to impel before the

competent Authority and obtain necessary orders.

8. To paraphrase, be it for any reason, no

one can be allowed to take law into their own

hands or to commit any action in violation of

law, whatever be the provocation or compulsion. WP(C) NO. 17676 OF 2024

In a democratic society like ours, governed by a

very vibrant Constitution, the parties will have

to take recourse to law, as is available to them,

without indulging in violent activity.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ

petition and direct the 1st respondent - Station

House Officer to ensure that law and order is

always maintained and none of the parties are

allowed to take law into their own hands. A

continuous vigil to ensure the compliance of the

afore directions will be maintained by the said

Authority and any violation thereof will be dealt

with, to the fullest warrant of law.

As far as respondents 3 to 7 are concerned, I

leave them full liberty to invoke and pursue

every remedy available to them, including qua

their allegations that the petitioner is acting

illegally; and clarify that if any of the WP(C) NO. 17676 OF 2024

competent Authorities or Courts are to issue any

orders/proceedings, the same shall be adhered to

by the petitioner and also by the parties.

Coming to the 2nd respondent, I record the

submissions of Sri.N.Satheesh that they are not

causing any obstruction and that their members

are already being engaged by the petitioner.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS WP(C) NO. 17676 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17676/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACC EPTANCE DATED 14.02.2024 ISSUED BY SOUTHERN RAILWAY Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 8TH DAY OF MAY 2024 ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.13529 OF 2015 DATED 3RD JUNE 2015 Exhibit P4 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.28310 OF 2014 DATED 19TH NOVEMEBER,2014

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

Exhibit R4(a) True copy of the Certificate of Affiliation of the Trade Union with the INTUC dt. 15.10.2017 Exhibit R4(b) True copy of the letter dt. 2.5.2024 so given by the General Secretary of the Ernakulam District Construction and Allied Workers Union (INTUC) Exhibit R4(c) True copy of the Notice dt. 8.05.2024 issued by the Deputy Labour Officer regarding the Conciliation Meeting Exhibit R4(d) List of the workers in Kumbalam, who are having registration with the Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Board, dt.

21.05.2024