Kerala High Court
Lawrence Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 28 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 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 16694 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
LAWRENCE MATHEW
AGED 46 YEARS, PROPRIETOR,
PUTHENPURACKAL TIMBERS, VELLAVOOR
PANCHAYATH, KADAYANIKADAVU P.O.,
MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY HIS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. THOMAS K.V.
KOCHUPAINGOTU HOUSE, KARIKKATTOOR P.O.,
MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPALLY TALUK,
KOTTAYM, PIN - 686544
BY ADVS.
ABEL TOM BENNY
D.PREM KAMATH
TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
AMRUTHA SELVAM
GENTLE C.D.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MANIMALA CIRCLE, MANIMALA POLICE
STATION, KARUKACHAL MANIMALA ROAD,
CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686543
3 CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS (CITU)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MR. SUDHEESH, INUTIKKAL (H)
ERATHUVADAKARA P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686543
4 ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS (AITUC)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. BABU JOHN,
THEKKEMURIYIL (H), ERATHUVADAKARA P.O.
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686543
5 BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
W.P.(C) No.16694 of 2024
:2:
MR. SURESH, THEKKUMMUTIL (H),
ERATHUVADAKARA P.O. KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686543
6 INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS (INTUC)
REPRESENTED SECRETARY, MR RAJEEV
PADIYARAMAVIL (H), KADAYANIKADAVU P.O.
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686541
7 HINDU MAZDOOR SABHA (HMS)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR. JALAN,
THANIKATU (H), ERATHUVADAKARA P.O
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686543
8 CENTRAL KERALA TRADE UNION (CKTU)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.BABU,
INUTIKKAL (H), ERATHUVADAKARA P.O.
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686543
BY ADV.
SMT.REKHA C.NAIR - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.16694 of 2024
:3:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he is engaged in the business of
sale of timber and that he has his own permanent workers for
loading and unloading the same. He asserts that, his business is
being carried on in an area which is not covered by a Scheme
under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act (the
'Act' for short) and has produced Ext.P3 in substantiation. He
alleges that, however, in spite of this, respondents 3 to 8 - Trade
Unions, their members and men are constantly causing
obstruction, meting out threats and intimidation to him and his
employees, making usurious and untenable claims and demands;
and therefore, that he preferred Ext.P4 petition before the
police seeking protection, which, however, remains unheeded.
He says that he has been thus left without any other option but
to approach this Court.
2. I notice from the endorsements on the file that the
notices issued to the party respondents have already been
validly served. They have, however, chosen not to be present in
person today, or to be represented through counsel; and this was
the same when this matter was earlier listed on 21.05.2024.
3. Since the party respondents are refusing to appear, this
Court passed an interim order on 21.05.2024, directing the 2 nd
respondent to ensure law and order and that the petitioner and
his employees are not subjected to any threat.
4. Today, Sri.Rekha C.Nair - learned Senior Government
Pleader, submitted that the interim order afore has been fully
implemented by the official respondents and that the party
respondents were summoned and sufficiently warned not to
engage themselves in any act which is contrary to law. She
submitted that the police will afford necessary protection to the
petitioner and his employees as long, as they act as per law; and
that none of the party respondents will be allowed to take law
into their own hands, or to commit any action which is in breach
of peace.
5. The afore submissions of the learned Senior Government
Pleader certainly allay the apprehensions of the petitioner,
particularly when it is admitted that, pending this lis, and after
the interim order issued by this Court, no untoward incidents
have happened.
6. In the afore circumstances, I record the afore
submissions of the learned Government Pleader; with a
consequential direction to the 2nd respondent - Circle Inspector
of Police, to ensure that respondents 3 to 8 or their members
and men are not allowed to commit any action which is in
violation of law, or to cause any obstruction, threats or
intimidation to the petitioner and his employees, adverting to
the factum of the petitioner's business being carried on in an
area which is not covered by any Scheme under the 'Act'.
7. The 2nd respondent will also ensure that law and order is
continuously maintained in the area in question, without any
breach of peace.
8. I, however, clarify that, if respondents 3 to 8 have any
legitimate grievance, their remedies for its ventilation, if
available, are left open.
This Writ Petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
anm
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16694/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED
18.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL
FOREST OFFICER KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED POWER OF
ATTORNEY DATED 01.03.2021, BEARING NO.
12/IV/2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE DATED
27/11/2023 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT LABOUR
OFFICER GRADE-II, CHANGANASSERY
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
19.04.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
DATED 19.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
