H.M. Najeem, Bharanaparambil, Kuzhikattumoola, Rajagiri P.O., Ernakulam, P. Shahul Hameed, Arayidath House, Kusumagiri P.O., Kakkanad and N.K. Salam, Nedumkulangaramalayil, Thrikkakara P.O., Kakkanad vs Headload Workers Union (STU), The Chairman, Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board and The Sub Inspector of Police, Thrikkakara

K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the fourth respondent to provide the petitioners with adequate and effective protection for their life and also for carrying out loading and unloading work in Pool No. 80 under the 3rd respondent without let or interference from respondents 1 and 2, their supporters and sympathizers.

ii) Hold that the obstruction caused against the petitioners'' engagement as headload workers in Pool No. 80 under the 3rd respondent is arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal.

Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:

Petitioners are registered headload workers of Pool No. 80 under the third respondent. On account of difference of opinion with their trade union leadership, they were denied employment with effect from 25/8/2012. Petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P. (C). No. 23910/12 against the denial of employment and this Court had issued Ext.P3 order, directing the 3rd respondent to allow the petitioners to work as independent headload workers. However, when the petitioners reported for duty on 05/11/2012, they were obstructed and the second petitioner was assaulted and hospitalized. Petitioners submitted Exts.P6 before the third respondent and Ext. P7 before the fourth respondent. Alleging inaction on the party of respondents 3 and 4, the petitioners are before us.

We have already passed an interim order dated 09/11/2012. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 16.11.2012 it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that under cover of the interim order, a deaf and dumb worker was attacked by the third petitioner. We, thereafter, adjourned the case to today.

When the matter came up today, learned Government Pleader would submit that a crime has been registered against the third petitioner, wherein the allegation is that he has attacked one Shri A. Siddique, a worker on 12/11/2012.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners, three in number, may be allowed to work in one turn as, if they are allotted separately, they will be disabled by the might of the members of the respondent unions.

Learned counsel for the Board would submit that the Board has done all that it can and creating a pool of three workers may not be possible and they will be lazy in the work, if they are allotted and such instances have also occurred and it is also submitted that the pool leader has given complaint against the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would submit as follows:

The union is not made a party in the Writ Petition in which Ext.P3 order was passed, and only the pool leader was a party. In this case, no doubt, the union leaders are parties. He would also reiterate the conduct of the third petitioner as aforesaid. He would submit that as far as the allegations made against the party respondents which are supported only by newspaper reports, the allegation made against the third petitioner is supported by the lodging of the FIR against the third petitioner. He relied on Article 226(3) of the Constitution and submits that as a counter affidavit was filed in the Writ Petition in which Ext. P3 order was passed, by the pool leader and fifteen days have elapsed, Ext. P3 order does not any longer survive.

After having heard the learned counsel appearing, we are of the view that presence of the police may be necessary not only to ensure that Ext.P3 order is enforced, but also to see that no harm is caused by the petitioners also to the other workers, an apprehension which finds support in the FIR lodged against the third petitioner. We also feel that the third respondent must be left free to take action in accordance with law against the petitioners, if there is warrant for the same. Accordingly, we dispose of the Writ Petition as follows:

There will be a direction to the fourth respondent to provide protection to the petitioners to do the work as contemplated in Ext.P3 order. The fourth respondent will also ensure that there is no attack by the petitioners against the other workers. We make it clear that this Judgment will certainly not be considered by the Court which is hearing the Writ Petition in which Ext.P3 has been passed. The Court is free to consider the argument of the party respondents that under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, the order has ceased to have effect. We further make it clear that this Judgment will not stand in the way of the third respondent taking action against the petitioners, if there is warrant for the same in law. We also make it clear that this Judgment will not stand in the way of the police investigating into the crime launched against the third petitioner in accordance with law. This Judgment will also not stand in the way of the third respondent initiating or continuing any action against the pool workers in accordance with law.