IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20925 of 2011(M) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- MRS. JULIE VARGHESE, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O. AJOSH GEORGE, RESIDING AT PADIYIL HOUSE, VARIKOLI.P.O., PUTHENCRUZ, PIN-682308, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION,PUTHENCRUZ-682308, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION, PUTHENCRUZ-682308, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. KERALA HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU), THIRUVANKULAM, PIN-682305, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. SAJU. ADV. SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20925 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 20/03/11 ENTERED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND M/S ESSAR STEELS LTD. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 30/07/11 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS. EXT.P3:- TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING LOADING AND UNLOADING ACTIVITIES IN PETITIONER'S BUSINESS PREMISES USING MECHANICAL DEVICES LIKE CRAIN. EXT.P3(a):- TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING LOADING AND UNLOADING ACTIVITES OF STELL ARTICLES IN PETITIONERS BUSINESS PREMISES USING MECHANICAL DEVICES LIKE CRAIN. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.20925 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J The petitioner had entered into Ext.P1 agreement with M/s Essar Steels Ltd. for usage of the godown belonging to the petitioner along with the land appurtenant thereto, situated in Thiruvaniyoor village, for using it as retailing outlet of M/s Essar Steels. By virtue of terms of the said agreement the petitioner had undertaken to carry out the loading and unloading activities in the premises by using her own 'Crane' and other equipments and by engaging personnel of her own choice. On the basis of the said agreement the petitioner had installed Crane in the premises and no manual labour is required for the loading and unloading activities. W. P. C. No.20925 of 2011 -2- 2. Complaint of the petitioner is that when the loading- unloading work started, certain persons claiming to be members of the 3rd respondent union created obstructions claiming for engagement of their members for doing the loading-unloading works. Contention of the petitioner is that she has got every legal right to carry out the loading- unloading activities using the mechanical device installed in the premises and that the third respondent or anybody else claiming under them have no manner of right to create any obstruction to such activities. It is complained that, even though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 before the first respondent, no effective steps were taken. Hence the petitioner is seeking direction for affording police protection for carrying out the loading-unloading works in the premises by using the Crane and other mechanical devices, from not being obstructed in any manner. W. P. C. No.20925 of 2011 -3- 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, it is contended that the members of the 3rd respondent union are registered headload workers coming under Pool No.12 (Thiruvankulam Unit) under the scheme formulated under the Kerala Headload Workers Act implemented. It is contended that the members of the 3rd respondent union has got right to do the loading and unloading works in the area notified within the limits of the pool under which the petitioner's establishment situates. It is contended that loading-unloading works in the premises involves engaging and disengaging of the hooks of Cranes, stacking of materials using trolley, bundling of iron sheets and other materials etc. Therefore, the contention is that the entire work coming within the premises could not be done using mechanical devices and it has to be done manually. It is further contended that while lifting the materials using the W. P. C. No.20925 of 2011 -4- Crane manual control of the swinging action need be done by employing labour. It is alleged that the petitioner is now engaging unregistered workers brought from other states for doing such works, which could not be permitted considering the provisions of the Headload Worker's Act and the scheme made thereunder. 4. Per contra, Sri.Peeyus A. Kottam, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that whatever activity coming within the definition of 'headload work' as defined under the Act and the Scheme is being done only by using mechanical device and the petitioner is not engaging any other person for doing any work which will come within the purview of 'headload work'. 5. It is discernible from the facts and circumstances that the materials handled in the premises of the petitioner are heavy iron and steel items which requires mechanical W. P. C. No.20925 of 2011 -5- device for proper loading and unloading. We do not find any material to support the contention of the respondent union that, for the allied works connected with the loading and unloading, their members alone can be engaged. However, we make it clear that if there is any work which is coming within the nature of 'headload work' if carried out within the premises, apart from the work being done using mechanical device, the third respondent is always at liberty to claim such work. 6. It is stated by Sri.M.L.Sajeevan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent that, with respect to the dispute there was a compromise arrived at between the petitioner's husband and the third respondent and it was promised that three members of the 3rd respondent union will be engaged. But it is alleged that after engaging such workers for three days, now the petitioner is denying work to W. P. C. No.20925 of 2011 -6- the members of the 3rd respondent, with a view to engage workers brought from other states. 7. We make it clear that if there is any denial of employment or if there is denial of any legitimate right to the members of the third respondent union for claiming the works of the petitioner, they will be at liberty to approach the competent authority under the Labour Department and to seek appropriate remedy. 8. On the basis of the findings arrived at as above, we direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take effective steps to remove obstructions if any caused to the loading - unloading works of the petitioner being done with mechanical device. The respondents 1 and 2 shall take adequate steps to avert obstructions if any and to afford protection to such activities of the petitioner. 9. We also make it clear that the above order will not W. P. C. No.20925 of 2011 -7- entitle the petitioner to engage any unregistered workers for any works coming within the purview of 'headload work' as defined under the Act and the Scheme made thereunder. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-