High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2017-01-18Writ petition disposed of.

K.T Mathew and Company v. Circle Inspector of Police, North Parur & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.37272 of 2016 (H)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Antony Dominic, J.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.
Judgment Date: 2017-01-18
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of; it is ordered that, in the event of any obstruction by the unions or any party respondent, the first respondent shall provide adequate and effective police protection to enable the petitioner to continue its work by employing workers. The petitioner agrees to cooperate with conciliation proceedings, and the parties are urged to participate in such conciliation. The decision underscores that disputes arising from the binding agreement should be resolved through the appropriate conciliation process rather than by obstructing ongoing construction work.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.T Mathew and Company
Kochumuttam Constructions, Avoly P.O, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District, represented by its Managing Partner

Respondents

Circle Inspector of Police, North Parur, Ernakulam District
The Sub Inspector of Police, North Parur, Ernakulam District
The Construction Workers Union [CITU], Canal Shed Road, Boat Jetty, Ernakulam
District Construction Workers Union [INTUC], Kalabhavan Road, Kochi
Ernakulam Jilla Nirmaan Thozhilali Sangh [BMS], I.S. Press Road, Kochi
Ernakulam District Construction and General Workers Union [AITUC & WFTU], C.S Road, TU House, Kochi
Suneesh s/o Kanaka, Vazhakallat, Thathappally P.O, Mannam, North Parur
Rajesh Ezhikkara, North Parur, Ernakulam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.V.M.Kurian

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.T.K.Devarajan
• Sri.Paul C. Thomas
• Sri.V.C.Archana
• Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash
• Sri.P.P.Thajudeen (Sr. Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

K.T Mathew and Company, a partnership firm, was awarded a Kerala Public Works Department contract for constructing a bridge across the Periyar river at North Parur. In July 2016, piling commenced and skilled workers were engaged. The petitioner alleges that work at the site was obstructed by members of respondents 3 to 6 and 7 to 8, leading to stoppage and disruption of progress. The writ petition seeks police protection to ensure the smooth continuation of the construction. Despite service of notices, only respondents 3, 4, 7 and 8 appeared. In their counter, respondent 4 placed before the court a memorandum of settlement between the Builders Association of India and the Trade Unions, insisting that the petitioner is bound by the agreement and that union members must be engaged; the petitioner's alleged non‑compliance with the terms allegedly triggered agitation. The court notes that the respondents have not produced documents proving that union members were employed at the site, and the petitioner denies such employment. It is held that unions could not be allowed to stall work on an urgent bridge project, but the remedy for disputes lies in conciliation and lawful proceedings rather than forcing police protection to defeat binding agreements. The court directs that, if obstruction occurs, the first respondent may provide police protection to enable continued work, and the parties should cooperate in conciliation. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that police protection was essential to ensure uninterrupted progress of the bridge construction project at North Parur. With the piling work underway since July 2016, the petitioner claimed that ongoing obstruction by unions and their affiliates (respondents 3–6 and 7–8) threatened stoppage, delay, and substantial harm to a critical public infrastructure project. They stressed the urgency of completing the job and contended that police protection should be granted to prevent coercive interference with lawful work and the petitioner’s right to employ its workers. They also urged the Court to prosecute conciliation/settlement mechanisms only if disputes arise, but to ensure protections so that the project can proceed without undue interruptions while agreeing to cooperate in conciliation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the petitioner is bound by a binding agreement with the unions, evidenced by a memorandum of settlement presented by respondent 4. They argued that union members must be engaged in line with the agreement, and that the petitioner’s alleged noncompliance has led to agitation and disruptions. They asserted that the remedy lies in conciliation and lawful dispute-resolution rather than court-ordered police protection that could undermine the binding agreement and the unions’ rights. They cited Peethambaran v. Ramachandran to argue that police protection cannot be used to defeat binding terms of such agreements. They further argued that there is no solid documentary proof that union members were actually employed at the petitioner’s site, undermining the petitioner's claim of obstruction and the necessity for protection. The respondents urged dismissal or denial of police protection and reliance on conciliation procedures to resolve the dispute.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Peethambaran v. Ramachandran	1999 (1) KLT 752	Mentioned Only	Cited to support the contention that police protection cannot be used to defeat binding terms of an agreement; the court does not adopt or fully apply its ratio within this judgment.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K.T Mathew and Company v. Circle Inspector of Police, North Parur & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/28TH POUSHA 1938 ## WP(C).No.37272 of 2016 (H) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: - -------------- K.T MATHEW AND COMPANY KOCHUMUTTAM CONSTRUCTIONS, AVOLY P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 513. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 513. 3. THE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS UNION [CITU] CANAL SHED ROAD, BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION WORKERS UNION [INTUC] KALABHAVAN ROAD, KOCHI 682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 5. ERNAKULAM JILLA NIRMANA THOZHILALI SANGH [BMS] I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY 6. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION [AITUC & WFTU] C.S ROAD, T.U HOUSE, KOCHI 682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 7. SUNEESH S/O.KANAKA, VAZHAKKALA, THATHAPPALLY P.O, MANNAM, NORTH PARUR 683 513. 8. RAJESH EZHIKKARA, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 513. R4,R 7,R 8 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN R4,R 7,R 8 BY ADV. SRI.PUAL C. THOMAS R4,R 7. 8 BY ADV. SMT.V.C.ARCHANA R3,R4,R 7,R 8 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 37272 of 2016 (H) --------------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 24.5.16 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE STATE OF KERALA AND THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16.11.16 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 16.11.16 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT. ----- ## **ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.** -----------------------------------------------W. P. (C) No.37272 of 2016 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of January, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Antony Dominic, J.** 1. aThe petitioner is a partnership firm. It is stated that the Public Works Department of the Government of Kerala, have awarded them the work of construction of a bridge across the Periyar river at North Parur connecting Thathappally - Valluvally areas. The piling work commenced on July 2016, and according to the petitioner, considering the nature of the work, they engaged some skilled workers, which has been obstructed by the members of respondents 3 to 6 and 7 and 8 leading to stoppage of work. In the circumstances, the writ petition has been filed praying for orders for police protection for the smooth continuance of the work. W. P. (C) No.37272 of 2016 -2- 2. Despite service of notice on all the party respondents, only respondents 3, 4, 7 and 8 are represented by the counsel. In the counter affidavit filed, the fourth respondent has produced copy of the memorandum of settlement entered into between the representatives of the Builders Association of India and the Trade Unions. It is their case that under the said agreement which binds the petitioner, the members of the Unions are liable to be engaged and the petitioner is also bound by the other terms of the agreement. It is their contention that since the petitioner has failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, they had to resort to agitation. It is also their case that as a result, the members of the Union who were working at the site of the petitioner are now denied employment. Counsel also referred us to the judgment of this Court in **Peethambaran v. Ramachandran [1999 (1) KLT 752]** to support the contention that the petitioner -3- W. P. (C) No.37272 of 2016 cannot seek orders of police protection from this Court to defeat the terms of a binding agreement. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made. 4. Insofar as the claim that the members of the Unions were employed at the site of the petitioner is concerned, not only that the Unions have not produced any document in support thereof, but also the petitioner has denied these allegations. In such circumstances, we are not persuaded to act upon the submissions now made before us by the respondents. Similar is the case with respect to the agreement now relied on by the Unions. The terms of the agreement can be taken advantage of by the Unions only if it is shown that the members of the Union were employed at the site of the petitioner, which fact is not established before us. In such circumstances, all that we can say is that if at all the Unions have a case that the petitioner has not -4- W. P. (C) No.37272 of 2016 honoured any of the terms of the agreement, the remedy available to them is to raise a dispute before the conciliation officer and to proceed in accordance with law. 5. Be that as it may, the aforesaid proceedings cannot result in stoppage of work and particularly when the work is in connection with the construction of a bridge which has to be completed on an expeditious basis. In such circumstances, it is ordered that in the event of any obstruction is offered by the Union or any one of the party respondents herein, it would be open to the petitioner to make a request to the first respondent who thereupon shall afford adequate and effective police protection to ensure that the petitioner is enabled to continue its work by employing its workers without any hindrance from any part. 6. We also record the submissions of the petitioner that in the event of any dispute is raised by the respondents and a conciliation is convened, they shall co-operate with W. P. (C) No.37272 of 2016 -5- such proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE** Sd/- **DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE** kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE