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 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 15057 of 2011(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.GHANI, PROPRIETOR OF KAJA GLASS HOUSE, II/243, 244, 245, TAILOR STREET, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH, SRI.C.B.RAJEESH BABU. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 004. 3. KABEER, UNION LEADER, POOL NO.38, ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS (AITUC), OPPOSITE NURANI SCHOOL, NURANI JUNCTION, NURANI, PALAKKAD-678 004. 4. VELU, UNION MEMBER, POOL NO.38, ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS (AITUC), OPPOSITE NURANI SCHOOL, NURANI JUNCTION, NURANI, PALAKKAD-678 004. 5. MUSTAFA, UNION LEADER, POOL NO.38, SWATHANTHRA TRADE UNION (STU), OPPOSITE NURANI SCHOOL, NURANI JUNCTION, NURANI, PALAKKAD-678 004. Kss ..2/- ..2... WPC.NO.15057/2011 F *ADDL.R6 & R7 IMPLEADED: R6. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD. (*ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 20/06/2011 IN I.A.9066/2011) R7. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001. (*ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 22/07/2011 IN I.A.NO.11856/11) **ADDL.R8 IMPLEADED: R8. SRI.V.VASU, POOL LEADER, POOL NO.15, COURT ROAD, PALAKKAD. (**ADDL.R8 IS SUO-MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 26/07/2011) R1 & R2 & ADDL.R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M.CHARISMA R3 TO R5 BY ADVS. SRI.M.SUGADHA KUMAR, SRI.LIJU. M.P. R6 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE.SC,KSHLWWB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.15057/2011 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION NO.115766 DTD.20/04/2011. P2: COPY OF THE G.O.NO.10347/LEG.(2/2008/LAW DTD. 08/08/2-008. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: ANNEX.R6A: COPY OF DETAILS CONTAINING POOL NO.15. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO.15057 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Abduld Rehim,J. Petitioner is seeking police protection to his life and property and to the lives of his workers, from the obstructions being caused by respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner is the proprietor of a Glass shop situated in 'Tailor street', Palakkad. He is dealing in float glass, glass mirrors, polished glass, toughened safety glass, and other glass materials. According to the petitioner, he has got own expert workers for the loading and unloading works in the shop. But the respondents 3 to 5 unions are creating problems and obstruction to the loading works, claiming that they are the registered headload workers in the area in question and that they alone are entitled to do the works of loading and unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, the materials dealt with in the petitioner's shop are delicate articles and such articles WP(C) .15057/2011 2 will not come within the purview of the definition of 'Headload Work', under section 2(m) of the Kerala Heaload Workers Act. It is also contended that in an abundant caution, the permanent workers attached to the petitioner's establishment have already applied for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, and such applications are pending disposal before the Additional 7th respondent. With respect to the physical obstruction caused, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 complaint before the 2nd respondent. Since no effective steps are taken to afford any protection, this writ petition is filed. 3. In the counter affidavit of respondents 3 to 5 it is contended that, the establishment of the petitioner is situated in an area where functional operation of the scheme formulated under the Headload Workers Act has been implemented. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to do the loading and unloading works by engaging unregistered workers. It is also contended that the members of respondents 3 to 5 unions are the registered headload workers having registration under the scheme and they alone are entitled to do the works in all establishments coming within the area covered under the pools WP(C) .15057/2011 3 constituted under the scheme. 4. In a statement filed by the Additional 6th respondent it is mentioned that the establishment of the petitioner is situated in a scheme covered area, coming within the limits of pool No.15, consisting of 6 headload workers. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the 6th respondent contended that, being a scheme implemented area, the petitioner is not entitled to do the loading and unloading works by engaging unregistered workers. 5. In view of the above said contentions, we directed the Government pleader to ascertain the status of the applications submitted by the attached workers of the petitioner for registration under Rule 26A. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions received from the 7th respondent submitted that, the applications stand rejected, since the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that they are the permanent workers of the establishment in question. However, we take note of the fact that against the denial of registration, the workers have got a remedy of appeal as provided under Rule 26C before the District Labour officer. 6. We also notice that there exists yet another controversy WP(C) .15057/2011 4 as to whether the establishment is situated within the area of pool No.15 or pool No.38. Contention of the petitioner is that the establishment is situated within the area assigned to pool No.38 and not to pool No.15. However, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent confirmed that, the establishment is situated within the area covered by pool No.15 . We need not resolve the said dispute since it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate instructions from the 6th respondent, if he intends to engage workers registered under the scheme. 7. Considering the rival contentions and issues, we are of the opinion that police protection cannot be granted for doing the loading and unloading work by engaging unregistered workers, since it is evident that the area wherein the shop is situated is covered under the scheme and its functional operation has been implemented. However, it will be left open to the petitioner to engage his own workers, if ultimately the registration is granted to such workers. 8. We notice that there is an allegation of threat caused to the lives of the petitioner and his employees. The 2nd respondent will take appropriate steps to avert such threat if any WP(C) .15057/2011 5 caused to the lives of the petitioner or his workers, if any reliable intimation is received regarding any such apprehended threat. 9. We dispose of the writ petition reserving liberty to the parties to seek appropriate relief from the competent Labour authorities on the disputed question regarding entitlement for the works in the establishment of the petitioner. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .15057/2011 6