Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TIP TOP FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL versus THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


TIP TOP FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL v. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE - WP(C) No. 12436 of 2007(E) [2007] RD-KL 16037 (18 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 12436 of 2007(E)

1. TIP TOP FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent

2. HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION

For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA

For Respondent :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

Dated :18/08/2007

O R D E R

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

W.P.(C) No. 12436 of 2007-E Dated 18th August, 2007.

JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner is a furniture manufacturing unit represented by its Proprietor. This writ petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to render adequate police protection to the petitioner for peacefully loading and unloading the timber/wood/furniture products in the Tip Top Furniture International showroom in Building No.II/262 E,F,G,H,K,L,M,N,O,P, K.K.Towers, Muttom, Choornikara Grama Panchayat by engaging its own permanent headload workers; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to render adequate police protection to the lives and property of the petitioner and their workers." The case of the petitioner is that it has started a unit at Muttom in Choornikara Grama Panchayat. The unit has its own registered headload workers to do the loading and unloading work inside the unit. But, the 2nd respondent Union is causing obstruction, claiming that its WP(C) No.12436/07 members are entitled to get the work of loading and unloading in the unit. According to the petitioner, as long as it has got registered headload workers, it is entitled to engage them. The police was moved. When there was no action from the part of the police, this writ petition is filed, seeking the above quoted reliefs.

2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, resisting the prayers in the writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent pointed out that the members of the 2nd respondent were doing the unloading work of the petitioner for the last two years. Now, employment is denied to them and work is sought to be done, using its permanent workers. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the police did not interfere in the matter and the parties were directed to approach the conciliation machinery.

4. This Court has already granted interim order on 11.4.2007, granting protection to the petitioner to do loading and unloading work, provided it is employing registered headload workers for the same. We feel that the said order should continue until the 2nd WP(C) No.12436/07 respondent establishes its right through the statutory forum, to get the loading and unloading work in the petitioner's unit. It is ordered accordingly and the writ petition is disposed of.

K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE.

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

nm.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.