IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30233 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LEELA, AGED 45, D/O.JAGADAMMA, RESIDING IN 'DRISHIYAM', T.C.68/2258(1),N.H.BY-PASS VENGARA, THIRVA LLAM (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CITY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEMOM 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLOM. 4. C.MADHU, CONVENOR, CITU, KOLLAMTHARA VEEDU, PACHALLOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 5. B.VIOND, CONVENOR, INTUC, PANDARAVILA, PACHALLOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 6. S.BALACHANDRAN, CONVENOR, UTUC,KADABVILVEEDU, PACHALLOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 7. K.SUNIL KUMAR, AITUC, KOLLAMTHARA, PACHALLOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 8. S.SUBHODAN, CONVERNOR, B.M.S. ANCHITHENGU, PACHALLOOR, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP FOR R4 TO 8 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL-R1 TO R3 WPC 30233/2008 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 30233/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF LICENCE FEE DATED 12.2.2008. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12.2.2008 ISSUED FROM THE CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF PROFESSION TAX DATED 3.10.2008. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT REGARDING 10 CENTS OF PROPERTY DATED 27.5.2008. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 6.10.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R4 - TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(b) – TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(c) – TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(d) – TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF 8TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R5 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.30233 OF 2008-Y ----------------------------------------- Dated 2nd December, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner submits, she is running a small hollow bricks manufacturing unit. The loading/unloading work in that establishment is being done by the petitioner, her husband and one Mr.Sudarsanan, who is a relative of the petitioner's husband. Recently, respondents 4 to 8 and the members of their unions have come forward claiming work in her establishment. They are causing physical obstruction, demanding work. Therefore, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before the police, seeking protection. Alleging that the police did not take any action, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. The respondents 4 to 8 have filed a counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner's unit is not that small, as claimed by her. The unit is established in an area covered by the scheme notified under the Kerala WPC 30233/08 2 Headload Workers Act. So, only registered headload workers can do the loading/unloading work there. The local headload workers are having registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules and also under the scheme. Since it is a scheme covered area and as the petitioner does not have any registered headload workers, the members of the unions represented by respondents 4 to 8 are entitled to do the loading/unloading work in her unit, it is submitted. They have already moved the District Labour Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, raising this dispute by filing Ext.R5 petition. Thus, the statutory authority is considering the matter, it is submitted. 3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the police advised the unions not to cause any obstruction till the matter is decided by the D.L.O. 4. Having regard to the facts of the case, we feel that the parties should go by the decision of the D.L.O and the police should assist in implementing the decision of the D.L.O., rendered by him in this matter. This view taken by us will not affect the rights of the parties to challenge the decision of the D.L.O., if they feel aggrieved by it and the WPC 30233/08 3 police will be bound to follow the decision, if any, rendered by the higher forums. In view of the above position, if anybody causes obstruction to the petitioner doing the loading/unloading work in her establishment till the D.L.O decides the matter, she may inform the police. In that event, the police shall remove the obstruction. But, once the decision of the D.L.O comes, the police need extend protection, if only the petitioner abides by that decision in original or as modified by the superior authorities. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Nm/