Kerala High Court
WP(C)/40696/2017 of M/S.BUILTEC FOUNDATIONS Vs THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION on 29 December 2017
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 40696 of 2017 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- M/S.BUILTEC FOUNDATIONS,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939WP(C).No. 40696 of 2017 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):------------- M/S.BUILTEC FOUNDATIONS, 1172-C7, THOPPIL ESTATE, JANATHA, VYTTILA, KOCHI - 682 019, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.MANESH K.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE SRI.P.SREEKUMAR (THOTTAKKATTUKARA) SMT.SOUMYA JAMES
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI - 682 002. 2. THE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS UNION (CITU), CANNON SHED ROAD, BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION WORKERS (INTUC), KALABHAVAN ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 4. SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC TRADE UNION (S.D.T.U), KOCHI MEGHALA COMMITTEE, CC 9/63, KOCHANGADY CROSS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS KOCHI MEGHALA GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI.MOHAMMED SHAHIM.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.E.A.HARIS R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MANU RAJ K.J.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 40696 of 2017 (J) ---------------------------- APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS-----------------------EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF WORK ORDER DATED 4TH MAY, 2017 ISSUED BY M/SASSET HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED TO THE PETITIONER.EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3RD JUNE, 2015 IN W.P.(C)NO.13529 OF 2015.EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19TH NOVEMBER, 2014 IN W.P.(C)NO.28310 OF 2014.EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF PETITION DATED 11TH DECEMBER, 2017 SUBMITTEDBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS-----------------------EXHIBIT R4(a)COPY OF NOTICE GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER AND LABOUROFFICER.
//TRUE COPY//PA TO JUDGE
dkr
A.M. SHAFFIQUE & ASHOK MENON, JJ.
------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 40696 of 2017
------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29[th] day of December, 2017
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
The petitioner had approached this Court, inter alia,contending that they are contractors, who undertakes the pilingwork. They are presently carrying on the piling work of a projectby name “Asset Genesis” at Mattancherry. The work is beingdone for and on behalf of M/s Asset Homes Pvt.Ltd. It is statedthat demanding that the members of respondents 2 to 4 shouldbe permitted to undertake the piling work, they are creatingobstruction to the work being carried out by the petitioner.According to the petitioner, they have specialised workmen tocarry out the piling work and there is no reason as to why theyshould employ any of the persons suggested by respondents 2 to4. There is no legal obligation and as such apprehendingobstruction, a complaint had been filed before the 1[st]respondent. Since no action has been taken in the matter, thisWrit Petition is filed.
WP(C) 40696/2017
2
2. The 4[th] respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, interalia, contending that they are not creating any obstruction assuch. However, they are also entitled to seek employment, as faras the piling works and other works in the site of the petitioner.The learned Counsel further submits that in so far as noobjection has been created, there is no reason to grant policeprotection as sought for.
3. Though notices were served on the respondents 2 and3, there is no appearance.
4. The main contention raised by the petitioner is thatthey are having specialised workers for carrying out the pilingwork and they cannot employ any of the persons as suggested byrespondents 2 to 4. In fact, there is no legal obligation on thepart of the petitioner to engage any person suggested byrespondents 2 to 4 for the specialised work. The right of theworkmen to demand employment arise only when there is anyloading and unloading work, which, of course, has to beconsidered in a separate proceeding. As the matter stands now,we do not think that respondents 2 to 4 have any legal right todemand any work unless, otherwise agreed by the petitioner.
Under such circumstances, if there is any obstruction iscreated by respondents 2 to 4 in the matter relating to the pilingwork being carried out by the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent shallprovide adequate police protection. The Writ Petition is disposedof with the above observation.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE Judge
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
Judge
dkrTrue copy
PA to Judge