RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
Petitioner who is the Managing Partner of a firm by name 'Fathima Gas Service' at Kovalam junction (engaged in stocking and distributing LPG Gas cylinders entrusted by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) is before this Court, because of the forceful obstruction being caused to the operation of the unit by the respondents 5, 6 and 7.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent herein was engaged as a delivery boy in the petitioner's institution and that he was engaged only to do office work. In the course of time, the fifth respondent had effected some manipulations and misappropriations. Thereupon, steps were intended to be taken against him and the fifth respondent was not attending to the office from 30.08.2014 and there arose a dispute. Inspite of the willingness expressed by the petitioner to provide minimum wages to the concerned respondents workers in accordance with law, the party respondents herein had not turned up. They are taking the law into their hands and have made unconscionable demands, particularly, to reinstate the fifth respondent in service. Now, the fifth respondent, with the assistance of 6th and 7th respondents, is obstructing the functioning of the petitioner's agency, in the pretext of conducting strike and they are obstructing distribution of LPG cylinders forcibly. A shed is constructed in front of the office of the petitioner, slogans are being shouted, customers are being obstructed from free entry to the office, and delivery van is not allowed to take out of the godown. In such circumstances, petitioner approached respondents 1 to 3 seeking police protection for functioning of her office and for conducting distribution of LPG cylinders. Due to the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the fifth respondent has entered appearance and a detailed counter affidavit has also been placed on record. According to the fifth respondent, the version of the petitioner as such is not correct. Learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submits that the allegation of forceful obstruction is not at all correct and that the actual issue/dispute is between the petitioner and the landlord, with reference to the rented premise. Inspite of completion of service of notice, respondents 6 and 7 have not entered appearance.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that, pursuant to the complaint preferred by the petitioner, the matter was looked into and sufficient police men have been deployed, as a result of which, there is no threat to law and order situation as on date.
In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the third respondent to take all necessary steps to provide adequate/effective protection, if there is any threat to the law and order situation. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the merits of the issue with regard to the service conditions, particularly, as to employment of the fifth respondent or others if any. It is always open to the concerned respondents/parties to take up the matter before the authorities under the Labour Department and seek appropriate reliefs in accordance with law.
MANJULA CHELLUR, Chief Justice jes P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge