Jagannadha Rao, C.J.

Respondent No.5 in the writ petition is the appellant, which claims to be a labour union. It is aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge granting police protection to the writ petitioners against any obstruction by the appellant and three others (respondents 4 to 8 in the writ petition).

2. The first petitioner is the manager of a rubber company and the second petitioner is a contractor who has agreed with the first petitioner about the cutting and removal of 2000 rubber trees from 15 acres of rubber plantation after completing slaughter tapping of the rubber trees. The agreement is for an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- which has to be paid to the first petitioner by the second petitioner. The programme of slaughtering the trees and extracting rubber at the time of slaughter is a time-bound programme under the contract and has to be completed on or before 31-3-1993.

3. It is true that before the contract to slaughter was entered into between the first and second petitioners, respondents 4 to 8 in the writ petition or other members of the union were being engaged by the first petitioner for the purpose of upkeep of the estate. But since the trees hav