High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-07-29Writ petitions disposed; interim order retained...

W.P.(C) Nos. 6428 & 6447 of 2020 — Abdul Subhan V.K. and Muhammed Ashraf V.K. v. Sub Inspector of Police, Pookkottumpadam; Inspector of Police, Malappuram; District Police Chief, Malappuram; State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 6428 & 6447 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2021-07-29
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are disposed of by retaining the interim order with the following directions: (i) if there is any law and order problem, the petitioners may approach the Station House Officer with a representation; (ii) upon receipt of such a representation, the SHO will take the necessary steps to preserve law and order; (iii) all contentions raised before the Labour Authorities are left open for decision. The court did not decide the merits but left the matter to be resolved by the relevant authorities while preserving interim protection.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed; interim order retained with directions as to police protection and left open the Labour Authority proceedings; merits not adjudicated.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Subhan V.K.
Muhammed Ashraf V.K.

Respondents

Sub Inspector of Police, Pookkottumpadam Police Station, Pookkottumbadam P.O., Malappuram - 679 332
Inspector of Police, Pookkottumpadam Police Station, Pookkottumbadam P.O., Malappuram - 679 332
District Police Chief, Malappuram, Malappuram - 676 505
State of Kerala, represented by Secretary to Government, Home Department, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001
Abdul Salam C.K., aged 60 years, S/O. Abdu. C.K., Thachamgodan House, Thottekad, Amarambalam P.O., Malappuram - 679 332

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.M. Firoz
• M. Shajna
• E.C. Ahamed Fazil
• P.C. Muhammed Noushiq

Counsels for Respondents

• P. Samsudin
• Smt. S.K. Sreelakshmy
• Mathew G. Vadakkel
• G.P.
• M. Anuroop

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, Abdul Subhan V.K. and Muhammed Ashraf V.K., brothers who own two rubber estates in Amarambalam, Malappuram, filed two connected writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 6428/2020 and 6447/2020) seeking police protection during a dispute over workers engaged on their estates. They allege that rivals are obstructing tapping work and threaten their safety, workers’ welfare, and the estate operations, and urge the Court to mandamus the respondents to provide continuous protection and permit them to engage alternative labourers if needed. Respondents contend there is an ongoing labour dispute, referred to the Labour Officer, Nilambur, with conciliation pending, and argue that police intervention should support law and order if the dispute unsettles peace. The petitioners challenge the applicability of the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, 1974 to their facts and rely on Abraham Thomas v. Labour Court (1997 KHC 39). The Court notes an interim order exists and, while not ruling on the merits, retains the interim relief and directs: (i) any law and order issue should be raised with the Station House Officer via representation for necessary action; (ii) the SHO will address such issues; (iii) all contentions before Labour Authorities remain open for decision. The Court thus disposes of the petitions without deciding the merits, deferring to Labour Authorities to resolve the dispute while preserving law and order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, 1974

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend there was a dispute about workers employed at the rubber estates and they sought to engage other labourers; respondents allegedly created problems; they sought interim protection and police intervention to prevent law and order issues. They challenge the applicability of the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, 1974 to their facts and rely on Abraham Thomas v. Labour Court (1997 KHC 39). They urge the Court to retain the interim order and dispose the matter.

Contentions of Respondents

The contesting respondents dispute the petitioners’ claims, noting a labour dispute that has been referred to the Labour Officer at Nilambur with conciliation proceedings pending. They argue that the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, 1974 may be applicable, and emphasize that the police should intervene only to prevent law and order problems if the dispute escalates. They contend that the parties’ contentions must be decided by the relevant authorities and that the petitioners’ request for police protection should be considered in that context.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Abraham Thomas v. Labour Court	1997 KHC 39	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioners to argue about the Act’s applicability; court does not rely on it as controlling authority for the disposition.

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 W.P.(C) Nos. 6428 & 6447 of 2020 — Abdul Subhan V.K. and Muhammed Ashraf V.K. v. Sub Inspector of Police, Pookkottumpadam; Inspector of Police, Malappuram; District Police Chief, Malappuram; State of Kerala 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 6428 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER:** **ABDUL SUBHAN. V.K AGED 57 YEARS S/O. ENIKUTTY HAJI, VETTEKODAN HOUSE, THOTTEKKAD, AMARAMBALAM P. O., MALAPPURAM - 679 332.** **BY ADVS. SRI. K.M. FIROZ SMT. M. SHAJNA SRI. E.C. AHAMED FAZIL SRI. P.C. MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE**| |---|---| ||**POOKKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION,**| ||**POOKKOTTUMBADAM P. O.,**| ||**MALKAPPURAM - 679 332.**| |**2**|**THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**POOKKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION,**| ||**POOKKOTTUMBADAM P. O.,**| ||**MALAPPURAM - 679 332.**| |**3**|**THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,**| ||**MALAPPURAM,**| ||**MALAPPURAM - 676 505.**| |**4**|**THE STATE OF KERALA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**5**|**ABDUL SALAM C. K.,**| ||**AGED 60 YEARS**| ||**S/O. ABDU. C.K.,**| ||**THACHAMGODAN HOUSE,**| ||**THOTTEKKAD,**| ||**AMARAMBALAM P. O.,**| ||**MALAPPURAM - 679 332.**| **2** ## **W.P.(C) Nos.6428 & 6447 OF 2020** **6 HYDER ALI. M., AGED 56 YEARS S/O. NANNIYAPPU, MUDAVANKULAVAN HOUSE, THOTTEKKAD, AMARAMBALAM P. O., MALAPPURAM - 679 332.** **BY ADVS. SRI. P. SAMSUDIN SMT. S.K. SREELAKSHMY SRI. MATHEW G. VADAKKEL, G.P** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).6447/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C) Nos.6428 & 6447 OF 2020** **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER:** **MUHAMMED ASHRAF V.K. AGED 57 YEARS S/O. ENIKUTTY HAJI, VETTEKODAN HOUSE, THOTTEKKAD, AMARAMBALAM P. O., MALAPPURAM - 679 332.** **BY ADVS. SRI. K.M. FIROZ SMT. M. SHAJNA SRI. E.C. AHAMED FAZIL SRI. P.C. MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE POOKKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION, POOKKOTTUMBADAM P. O., MALAPPURAM - 679 332.** **2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOKKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION, POOKKOTTUMBADAM P. O., MALAPPURAM - 679 332.** - **3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM MALAPPURAM - 676 505.** - **4 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **4** ## **W.P.(C) Nos.6428 & 6447 OF 2020** **5 MUHAMMED P. C., AGED 60 YEARS S/O. KUNHALAVI, P. C. HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNU, AMARAMBALAM P. O., MALAPPURAM - 679 332.** **BY ADVS. SRI. P. SAMSUDIN SRI. M. ANUROOP SRI. MATHEW G. VADAKKEL, G.P** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).6428/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C) Nos.6428 & 6447 OF 2020** **5** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **-------------------------------------------W.P (C). Nos.6428 & 6447 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of July, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are brothers and they are in possession of two rubber estates. When there was some dispute about the workers employed in the rubber estate, they approached the police and subsequently these two separate writ petitions were filed with almost same prayer. The prayer in W.P (C) No.6428 of 2020 is extracted hereunder:- _“i. to call for the records leading to Exhibit P3 and direct respondents 1 to 4 to grant adequate, continuous and effetive police protection to the life of the petitioner, his family members and workers against respondents 5 and 6 and their henchmen by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriatte writ direction or order;_ _ii. to mould and grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.”_ ## 2. When these writ petitions came up for consideration, this Court passed an order directing the police **W.P.(C) Nos.6428 & 6447 OF 2020** **6** to intervene if there is any law and order situation. Today, when the matter came up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated his contention in these writ petitions. 3. The counsel submitted that the contesting respondents in these writ petitions were engaged for about two months in the rubber estate for tapping. According to the petitioners, subsequently, because of some dispute, the petitioners want to engage some other labourers. Then the contesting respondents started to create problem. In such situation, these two writ petitions were filed. The counsel submitted that the interim order may be retained and writ petitions may be disposed. 4. The counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that, there is a labour dispute between the contesting respondents and the petitioners. They approached the Labour Officer, Nilambur, and the matter is pending before the Labour Officer. A conciliation is pending. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not aware about such proceedings. The counsel also submitted that the Kerala Agricultural Workers **W.P.(C) Nos.6428 & 6447 OF 2020** **7** Act, 1974 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in _**Abraham Thomas v. Labour Court**_ (1997 KHC 39). 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that if there is any law and order problem, the police will do the needful. The Government Pleader submitted that there is some labour dispute and if that is not settled, there is chance for a law and order problem. 7. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. According to the contesting respondents, they already approached the Labour Authorities for redressing their grievance. The contesting respondents submitted that they are entitled benefit as per Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, 1974. The petitioners says that, the Act itself is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the decision of this Court in _**Abraham Thomas's**_ case. 8. These are matters to be decided by the Authorities concerned. Admittedly, there is an interim order in this case. The police is directed to see that there is no law and order problem in the area. The contesting respondents can agitate **W.P.(C) Nos.6428 & 6447 OF 2020** **8** their contention before the Authorities concerned. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed retaining the interim order with the following further directions:- - (i) If there is any law and order problem, the petitioners are free to approach the Station House Officer concerned with a representation. - (ii) If such a representation is received, the Station House Officer will do the needful to preserve law and order. (iii) All the contentions of the petitioners and the contesting respondents before the Labour Authorities are left open. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SPR **W.P.(C) Nos.6428 & 6447 OF 2020** **9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6428/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** ## **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AMARAMBALAM TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P1 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AMARAMBALAM TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.5.** - **EXHIBIT P2 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.6.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.02.2020 BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P3 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:-** **EXHIBIT R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE TRADE UNION TO THE PETITIONER.** **W.P.(C) Nos.6428 & 6447 OF 2020** **10** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6447/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 09.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AMARAMBALAM TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.5. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.02.2020 BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXHIBIT R5 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE TRADE UNION TO THE PETITIONER.**