IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30009 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- L.STEPHENSON, LEENA SADANAM, THYVILA, PERUKAVU (PO), VILAVOORKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. R.RETNAKARAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN NADAR, CONVENOR, C.I.T.U,PARUTHIPPARA VEEDU, NEAR ST.MARY'S L.P.S, VILAVOORKAL VILLAGE, PERUKAVU(PO) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695573. 2. MATHU,S/O.APPU, JOINT CONVENOR, CITU, VAYAKKAYIL VEEDU, THYVILA, PERUKAVU (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 573. 3. JAYAN, S/O.VASU, B.M.S.UNION, THYVILA, VILAVOORKAL VILLAGE, PERUKAVU (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 573. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY FOR R1,2&3 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.30009/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED by the DISTRUCT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 21.6.08. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 6.10.08. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.30009 OF 2008 V ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has started a tile manufacturing unit about four months back. For doing loading/loading work in his establishment, he has got his own workmen. It is not an area covered by the scheme under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act. But members of respondents 1 to 3 came to the unit, claiming that they should be engaged for doing the loading/unloading work. They started causing obstruction. So, the petitioner preferred Exhibit P2 representation before the police. Thereafter, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking appropriate directions to the police to grant him protection against the obstruction from the part of respondents 1 to 3. 2. We heard the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. It is not in dispute that the area is not a scheme covered area. But, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 prays that if there is any excess W.P.(C)No.30009/08 -2- work, the local registered head load workers belonging to those respondents may be engaged. 3. The petitioner's unit being a new unit, he should be conceded freedom to engage workmen of his choice, in view of Section 26 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act. If the loading/unloading works are done by the petitioner engaging his own workmen, respondents 1 to 3 have no right to cause obstruction to the same. So, if they cause obstruction, the petitioner may inform the 4th respondent. In that event, the 4th respondent shall remove the obstruction. If there is any excess work which cannot be handled by the petitioner's workmen, he shall prefer local registered head load workers for doing that work. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn