Judges : A.R.LAKSHMANAN,D.SREEDEVI
Midland Rubber & Produce Co.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police - Respondent
Case No : W.A.No.1216 of 1998
Decided On : 07/07/1998
Advocates Appeared :
P.K. Kurien (Sr. Advocate), Antony Dominic & C.N. Ramachandran Nair For Appellants C. Raghavan For Respondents
Mandamus - Police Protection - Industrial Disputes Act - [RAIN GUARDING WORK, POLICE PROTECTION, INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT] - The court considered the dispute regarding the engagement of tappers or casual workers for rain guarding work in an estate. The appellant sought police protection to carry out the work, which was obstructed by casual employees. The court held that the appellant had the legal right to engage workers of their choice for the rain guarding work and that the police had a duty to provide protection. The court issued a mandamus to provide adequate police protection to the appellant and their employees for the rain-guarding work, emphasizing the fundamental right to carry on a lawful trade or business and the duty of law enforcement agencies to ensure such rights are protected.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought police protection to carry out rain guarding work in their estate, which was obstructed by casual employees. The dispute revolved around the engagement of tappers or casual workers for the work.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had the legal right to engage workers of their choice for the rain guarding work and that the police had a duty to provide protection. The court issued a mandamus to provide adequate police protection to the appellant and their employees for the rain-guarding work.
Issues: The main issue was the dispute over the engagement of tappers or casual workers for rain guarding work and the appellant's request for police protection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the fundamental right to carry on a lawful trade or business and the duty of law enforcement agencies to ensure such rights are protected. It held that the appellant had the legal right to engage workers of their choice for the rain guarding work and that the police had a duty to provide protection.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was allowed, and a mandamus was issued to provide adequate police protection to the appellant and their employees for the rain-guarding work. The direction was confined only to the rain-guarding work in the estate concerned and not with reference to any other work for which the casual labourers are engaged. There was no order as to costs.
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.
With the consent of both parties, the appeal itself was taken up for final hearing. The Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment in O.P. 9188/1998 dated 18.6.1998 directing the District Labour Officer, Pathanamthitta, to consider the matter after convening a conference of the concerned parties and to decide the same. The short facts that are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are as follows:
2. The appellant filed O.P. 9188/1998 praying for a direction to afford adequate and effective police protection to the appellant, its executives and other staff in order to get the rain guarding work done by the tappers of the Perinad estate. According to the appellant the Original Petition had to be filed on account of the fact that in the Perinad estate belonging to the appellant-company a plastic sheet called 'rain guard' had to be pasted on the bark of the rubber trees in order to protect the tapping cut and the latex collection during monsoon season, which, according to the appellant will prevent spilling of rain water to the tapping cut as well as into the latex collection cap. It is the case of the appellant that this work was being done by the tappers of the estate for an extra payment and the tappers were preferred for the reason that being experienced in the job, they will ensure the quality of the work as otherwise the output from the tree will be affected. This year, while it was proposed to do rain guard pasting work, the casual employees of the estate demanded that they alone should be allowed to do this work which was not accepted by the appellant, the manager and other supervisory staff of the state. Because of their refusal they were gheraoed on 25.4.1998 in the estate office which continued until 2.30 a.m. on 26.4.1998. This was reported to the 4th respondent who had registered Crime No. 58/1998 in this behalf. When an attempt was made by the tappers on 7.5.1998 who were supplied rain guarding materials, the casual employees of the estate along with some outsiders prevented them and chased and manhandled the tappers and some of the injured had to be admitted in the Government Hospital, Pathanamthitta. It is stated that they threatened, abused and manhandled the Field Officer and damaged and destroyed the rain guards fixed on the rubber trees which was also reported to the 4th respondent by Ext. P1 complaint. Following this, Crime No. 66/1998 was registered by the 4th respondent and the matter is under investigation. The management therefore, filed Exts. P2 and P3 representations to respondents 1 to 4 seeking adequate police protection to the tappers and others in order to do the rain guarding work in the estate. As the complaint and the subsequent remainders did not yield any result, the appellant filed the Original Petition seeking the following prayers:
i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing respondents 1 to 4 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner and its executives and other staff in order to get the rain guarding work done by the tappers of the Perinad Estate;
ii) to direct respondents 1 to 4 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner to complete the rain guarding work in the Perinad Estate engaging the tappers of the Estate, pending disposal of the Original Petition; and
iii) to pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".
3. Respondents 5, 6 and 7 filed their counter affidavit contending that on the strength of Ext. R5(a) memorandum of settlement dated. 18.1.1971, casual workers are doing the rain guarding work. It was also submitted that they have approached the District Labour Officer who had initiated conciliation vide Ext. R5(c) notice. The management filed a reply to the counter affidavit along with annexures P4, P5 and P6. In the reply affidavit it was reiterated that the rain guarding work was be
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.