Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed seeking police protection to the personnel of the petitioner, establishment, workers/employees for the smooth functioning of the factory. The petitioner had earlier come to this court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.10775 of 2014. The writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this court. In paragraph 8 of the judgment the following was stated : "Even otherwise, as per the submission of Standing Counsel for the board, as the area in question falls within the scheme covered area, even if there is only 10% work which has to be manually attended to, deserves to be given to the pool workers concerned. It is also made clear that respondent Unions are not asking for 90% of the work which has to be done by machines but they are demanding only 10% work which has to be done manually.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue has already engaged the attention of the District Labour Officer and there is no manual work in his factory, in which head load WPC. No. 23594 of 2014 2 workers can be given any work.
3. As this petitioner has already filed a writ petition before this court, which has already been decided, we see no other cause of action to entertain the writ petition, which almost raises the same issue. We are satisfied that no direction can be issued as prayed for in the writ petition. This however, shall be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the District Labour Officer.
With this observation, the writ petition is dismissed.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
sou.