IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17884 of 2011(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- VADAKKAL WAREHOUSES, PANCHAYATH JUNCTION, MUPPATHADAM (P.O)., ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, VINU THOMAS, SON OF THOMAS, AGED 37 YEARS, VADAKKAL ESTATE, ALUPURAM P.O., KUTTIKKATTU KARA, ELOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM (RURAL), ALUVA, PIN-683 101. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGAMANADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683101. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683101. 4. THE SECRETARY, INTUC, MILLUPADY, MUPPATHADAM P.O.,ALUVA, PIN-683 101. 5. THE SECRETARY, CITU, MILLUPPADY, MUPPATHADAM P.O., ALUVA, PIN-683 101. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17884/2011 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO VICTOR BLOSSOM DTD. 16/09/2009. P2: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO JAMAL DTD. 16/09/2009. P3: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO SUBHASH DTD. 16/09/2009. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 6/4/2011 IN WPC.NO.7737/2009 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P5: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD DTD. 23/05/2011 ISSUED TO MR. RENISH JOSEPH. P6: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD DTD. 23/05/2011 ISSUED TO MR. V.RAJESH. P7: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD DTD. 23/05/2011 ISSUED O MR. M.SURESH. P8: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS DTD. 24/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 17884 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Abdul Rehim, J. The petitioner is seeking police protection for carrying out loading and unloading work in their establishment, which is a ware house situated in the address given above. The establishment situates in an area where the scheme formulated under the Headload Workers Act has already been notified as operative. The petitioner have three workers registered under the provisions of the Headload Workers Act, engaged in the loading and unloading works. On an earlier occasion, when there was obstructions caused to the activities by respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner had approached this court seeking police protection. Vide Ext.P4 judgment, this court directed respondents 1 to 3 to grant police protection with respect to the work of loading WP(C). 17884/11 -2- and unloading in the establishment being conducted with the three registered attached workers. Subsequently, the petitioner had obtained registration for three more permanent employees of the establishment as evidenced from Exts. P5 to P7, since the business activity was expanded to another building also. 2. Present grievance of the petitioner is that the members of respondents 4 and 5 are creating obstructions for doing the loading and unloading work by engaging the additional workers who were also registered. It is stated that they are even creating obstruction to the ingress and egress of vehicles to the establishment. Even though the petitioner approached respondents 1 to 3 seeking to remove such obstructions, they are taking the stand that Ext.P4 judgment would cover only the original 3 workers and WP(C). 17884/11 -3- protection could not be given to the newly registered employees. 3. In spite of service of notice from this Court, respondents 4 and 5 have not entered appearance or contested the case. Since it is evident that the employees covered under Ext.P5 to P7 are also registered workers of the petitioner's establishment, they are entitled to be engaged for loading and unloading works in the petitioner's establishment. The respondents 4 and 5 have no manner of right to obstruct such work. Hence respondents 1 to 3 are bound to give protection to such work from not being obstructed physically. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate protection for doing the work of loading and unloading in the establishment of WP(C). 17884/11 -4- the petitioner by engaging all workers of the petitioner having registration under the Headload Workers Act. Effective steps will be taken to remove physical obstruction, if any caused, including obstruction if any caused to the ingress and egress of vehicles to the establishment. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-