IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 37990 of 2007(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.K. CHEMICALS, EDAYAR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, BINAMIPURAM P.O., REP.BY ITS PARTNER, O.M.ABDUL KHADER, OOLIKARA HOUSE, EDATHALA NORTH, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASSAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINAMIPURAM POLICE STATION, BINAMIPURAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 4. UNIT SECRETARY, CITU, EDAYAR INDUSTRIAL AREA, BINAMIPURAM. 5. UNIT SECRETARY/CONVENOR, INTUC, EDAYAR INDUSTRIAL AREA, BINAMIPURAM. 6. UNIT SECRETARY/CONVENOR, BMS, EDAYAR INDUSTRIAL AREA, BINAMIPURAM. 7. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PARAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.HARIKUMAR.S.(ADV.COMMISSIONER) by GOVT. PLEADER MR. P.A. SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 37990/2007 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 19-6-2007 ISSUED FROM THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY O THE SHOP INSPECTION REPORT OF THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT DATED 28-2-2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19-9-2007. EXTS.P5 AND P6: TRUE COPIES OF THE applications OF THE TRAINED WORKERS BEFORE THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER. EXT.P7 & P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE S.I. OF POLICE BINANIPURAM AND HIS ACKNOWLEDGMENET RECEIPT. EXT.P9 SERIES: THE TRUE COPIES OF THE REGISTER COMMENCING FROM 21-2- 2007 TILL 7-1-2008 AND THE WAGE RECEIPTS FROM 24-2-2007 TO 5-1-2008. EXT.P10 SERIES TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE AND SALES BILL OF SULPHUR AND ALLIED CHEMICALS. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R4: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 AND SOUTHERN MINERALS & CHEMICALS, DATED 15-2-2005. EXT.R4(A) TRUE COPY OF OBJJECITON FILED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 BEFORE THE 7TH RESOPNDENT. KS. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. ======================= W.P.(C)NO. 37990 of 2007 ======================== DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF MARCH 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner is running a small scale industrial unit processing sulphur into various other products. It started production in February 2007. Sulphur is brought to the factory premises, which is unloaded by the petitioner's own workers, it is submitted. The finished products are loaded into vehicles by them only. While so on 3-12-2007, the local head load workers under the leadership of respondents 4 to 6 entered the factory premises and caused obstruction. So seeking police assistance, Ext.P7 representation was filed before the police. Ext.P8 is the receipt issued for the same. There is a discrepancy in the date mentioned in Ext.P8. So far the police have not rendered protection and therefore the petitioner could not do the loading/unloading work in his establishment. WPC.37990/2007 -2- 2. Respondents 4 to 6 have filed a counter affidavit stating that the unit stopped functioning in 1999 after a fire broke out and all the machineries were destroyed. The petitioner has started to do the necessary maintenance and other erection work of the unit in November 2007. The workmen denied that there is any obstruction from their part and they submit that loading/unloading work has not started so far. Since there was some dispute between the parties as to whether the unit is functioning or not, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by this Court. The learned Commissioner has filed a report stating that on the date of visit the unit was not functioning. But the petitioner has got all the necessary statutory clearances, licences etc. for running the unit. 3. The learned Government Pleader upon instruction submitted that upon receipt of the complaint, enquiry was conducted and the contents of the complaint were not correct. There is no law and order problem in the area warranting protection. WPC.37990/2007 -3- 4. It is common case that it is a scheme covered area. If the petitioner wants to engage his permanent workers to do the loading/unloading work in his establishment, they should have registration under Rules 26 A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. In the absence of registered headload workers, the petitioner has to engage the local workers of the pool to do the loading/unloading work in his establishment. In view of the above position as things stand now, the petitioner cannot be granted protection for doing the loading/unloading work in his establishment. In the result, the petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- P.N. RAVINDRAN , JUDGE ks. K.R.UDAYABHANU,J. =================== CRL.A.NO. OF 200 JUDGMENT DATE: ......2006 =====================