Jagannadha Rao, C.J.

This is an appeal preferred by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in the writ petition. The writ petitioner is the first respondent. In the writ petition, the relief claimed was for grant of police protection by issue of a writ of mandamus against respondents Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner also sought protection to its workers for carrying out the loading and unloading work in the factory of the petitioner at Brahmapuram, and for a direction for removal of all obstructions caused by the appellants and their followers in that behalf.

The writ petitioner has its registered office at Tripunithura and its factory at Brahmapuram. In the factory craft paper is manufactured, there are 32 workers in the factory, and there are four staffs in the establishment. The above said workers are attending to all work in the factory, including loading and unloading of raw materials and finished goods. The raw materials are waste paper, chemicals and firewood. The waste paper bundles, chemicals and firewood are reaching the factory compound in lorries and vans and finished goods, paper reels are loaded into the vehicles. The production in the factory began in August 1984, and it is the case of the petitioner that ever since then the workers in the factory are attending to loading and unloading work. The relationship between the workers in the factory and the petitioner has been cordial, and there are long-term settlements governing their relationship. But on 8th January 1992, when loads of waste paper came to the factory in lorries from Willingdon Island at 6.30 p.m., and the factory workers were unloading the material, suddenly some people of the locality gathered at the factory gate and began obstructing the workers engaged in unloading the waste paper bags. This created a tense situation between the factory workers on the one hand and the obstructor's ontheother. The writ petitioner came to know of the names of some of the obstructors, that they belong to certain trade unions and three of such obstructors are respondents Nos. 4 *o 6 in the writ petition (two appellants and another). The writ petitioner pronled a petition to the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimugal (third respondent), and also before respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Assistant Commissioner of Police and Circle Inspector of Police). The third respondent assured the petitioner that if any obstruction is caused by outsiders in future it will be removed. The petitioner apprehended that there would be obstruction by the loading and. unloading worker soft he locality and filed an application on 5th February, 1992, before the Sub Inspector of Police, the third respondent, praying for police protection. On 22nd February, 1992, when loading off in is held goods in lorries was taking place at 4 p.m., a gang of people said to be under the leadership of the fourth respondent in the writ petition and others came and demanded wages, and the lorry was not allowed to be removed from the factory site. The writ petitioner again went to the police station. Two constables were sent, and they released the lorry from the clutches of the gang under the leadership of the fourth respondent in the writ petition. The Director of the petitioner-company met the Sub Inspector of Police, the third respondent on 24th february, 1992, and he promised assistance, but on 25th and 26th February, 1992, he pleaded helplessness on account of the prevailing situation. The petitioner then approached the higher authorities and then filed the present writ petition in this Court.

A counter-affidavit has been filed before the learned single judge by the appellants, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in the writ petition, stating that they represent the INTUC Union, and the fourth respondent is the General Secretary of the Union. It is stated that the statement of the writ petitioner that the company workers are doing loading and unloading work is wrong and is in tended to avoid the headload workers who were carrying on the loadi