T.D. Joy vs The Superintendent of Police and Others

R. Basant, J.—The Petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to Respondents 1 to 4 to afford police protection to the Petitioner to get the work of road repair done by workmen of his choice employed by him against illegal obstruction that is raised by Respondent No. 6.

The Petitioner is a PWD C-class contractor. An item of work has been allotted to him. He has to face the constraints of time prescribed in the contract. He therefore has to expeditiously complete the work. He is being illegally obstructed from carrying out the work by the members of the sixth Respondent union. According to the Petitioner, he is not the member of any association of employers. He has not agreed with any one to provide employment for the workers of the sixth Respondent. In these circumstances, the sixth Respondent or workers under the sixth Respondent have no right to cause any obstruction to the work carried on by the Petitioner. Appropriate directions may in these circumstances be issued, it is prayed.

Respondent No. 6 has entered appearance. The sixth Respondent contends that in the light of Ext. R6(c) and R6(d) agreements, all contractors are bound to employ workmen of the sixth Respondent alone as workmen. The attempt of the Petitioner is to contend that he is not the member of the Kerala Contractors'' Association and that he is not bound by Exts. R6(c) and (d). This is not permissible. This petition may in these circumstances be dismissed, it is prayed.

We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Petitioner is asserting that he is not bound by Ext. R6(d) agreement and in these circumstances, disputes have arisen between the parties. The police had advised the parties to get their disputes resolved by conciliation before the labour authorities. Neither party has gone to the labour authorities now. If so directed by the Court, police protection shall be afforded to the Petitioner, submits the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader further points out that the Vacation Bench before which the matter came up had granted an interim order directing Respondents 1 to 4 to afford adequate, sufficient and effective protection for the execution of the balance works involved in Exts. P4, P5 and P6 by making use of the employees of the Petitioner named in Ext. P8 against any obstruction, threat or interference by the sixth Respondent and persons acting under him. The learned Government Pleader submits that the said interim order of protection is being scrupulously enforced.

We have considered all the relevant inputs. The sixth Respondent founds his claim on Ext. R6(d). That agreement is in force from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012. But, we are unable to find any effective reply/response to the contention of the Petitioner that he is not a member of the Kerala Contractors'' Association. Even the sixth Respondent does not have a specific case that the Petitioner is a member of the said Association.

There is, in these circumstances, substance in the contention of the Petitioner that he is not bound by Ext. R6(d). A further contention is raised that even going by Ext. R6(d), there is no stipulation of any exclusive right for the sixth Respondent to provide workmen for the contractors. Ext. R6(d) even if assumed to be binding and valid does not oblige the Petitioner or other contractors to exclusively employ members of the sixth Respondent. The language of Ext. R6(d) does not convey any such obligation/duty. No better material is produced.

We have considered all the relevant inputs. We find merit in the contentions raised by the Petitioner. Ext. R6(d) does not, according to us, contain a specific stipulation that members of the sixth Respondent alone can be employed by the contractor while executing the work. We are in these circumstances satisfied that the prayer of the Petitioner is justified. If the parties have any disputes, needless to say, their option to move the labour authorities to initiate conciliation proceedings shall remain unfettered by the disposal of this writ petition.

In the result:

a) This writ petition is allowed.

b) The interim direction issued on 3.5.2011 is made absolute. Respondents 2 to 4 are directed to afford adequate police protection for the Petitioner to carry out the work in accordance with law employing his own workmen without any obstruction from the sixth Respondent and members of the sixth Respondent.