IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33153 of 2009(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- RAMESH, S/O. SEDHU, AGED 29 YEARS, MUTTICHIRA, KUTTALA.P.O, KUNNISSERY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALATHUR POLICE STATION, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION (INTUC), NARIPOTTA UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SWAMINATHAN, S/O. PAZHANIANDI, KUNNISSERTY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SUNIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 33153/2009(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 04/07/2009. P2: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 22/01/2009. P3: COPY OF ORDER IN WPC 26257/2009 DATED 15/10/2009. P4: COPY OF THE FIR DATED 01/11/2009. P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 07/11/2009. P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14/11/2009. P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/11/2009 IN WPC 26257/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.33153 of 2009 ***************************** Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This is the second time that the petitioner is coming before this Court. Earlier the petitioner came to this Court claiming police protection for loading and unloading work in the hollow bricks manufacturing unit run by him, which was established under a self employment scheme. By Ext.P3 interim order which was later confirmed in the final judgment, the petitioner was permitted to get the work of loading and unloading in his unit done by himself, his sister and his father and no one else. Police protection was directed to be afforded to the petitioner for getting such work of loading and unloading done by himself, his sister and his father. The final judgment was passed on 03.11.2009. 2. The petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 17.11.2009 complaining that he was not being permitted to take vehicular traffic to and from his unit to transport materials and manufactured goods. The short grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding Ext.P3 order, which was confirmed by W.P(C) No.33153 of 2009 2 judgment dated 03.11.2009, obstruction to vehicular traffic to and from his unit was continuing. 3. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Respondent No.4 has entered appearance through counsel. Respondents 1 to 3 are represented by the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the petitioner has not placed the entire facts before Court. Under the guise of a further order of protection, the petitioner is attempting to get the work of loading and unloading in his unit done/performed by employing persons who are not registered under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act. In the bargain he is denying work to members of the 4th respondent, who are legally entitled to do such work. The 4th respondent or its members are not interested in obstructing the vehicular traffic into or from the petitioner's unit. Their objection is only against persons other than the petitioner, his sister and his father being engaged to do loading and unloading work. Either under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act or under the interim order dated 15.10.2010, which was later made absolute by judgment dated 3.11.2009, the petitioner is not entitled to get additional work of loading and unloading performed by persons other than himself, his sister W.P(C) No.33153 of 2009 3 and his father. The attempt to get the protection order extended to get such work done contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act may not be permitted, submits the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent points out that subsequent to the judgment dated 03.11.2009, under which Ext.P3 interim order was confirmed, clarification was sought and a Bench of this Court later vide order dated 12.08.2010 in I.A.No.866 of 2010 had clarified that the extra work of loading and unloading which the petitioner, his sister and his father cannot by themselves perform cannot be entrusted to anyone else by the petitioner contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act. In these circumstances, a blanket order permitting vehicular traffic into and out of the petitioner's unit which would facilitate additional work of loading and unloading being done by other workers may be prevented, submits the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The petitioner cannot obviously get the extra work performed by employing head load workers other than the petitioner, his sister and his father. If that were to be done, such employees will have W.P(C) No.33153 of 2009 4 to be registered under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently such registration has also been obtained in respect of two workers. Details of such registration are not made available. If there is valid registration, such registered workers can certainly be employed by the petitioner. If there are such registered workers and dispute has arisen between the 4th respondent and the petitioner relating to employment of workers other than registered workers, needless to say, that dispute will have to be resolved by following the procedure under Section 21 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act. Without and before that dispute is resolved, no order of police protection can be granted to the petitioner to facilitate such loading and unloading work being done by anyone other than the petitioner, his sister and his father or other registered workers if any. 8. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. We do not think it necessary to give the petitioner any further directions than what has been issued on 03.11.2009 as explained later by order dated 12.08.2010. If any additional workers have been registered validly, needless to say, they can also be employed. If still there are disputes regarding W.P(C) No.33153 of 2009 5 employment of workers, such disputes will have to be resolved by resort to the procedure under Section 21 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act. We make it clear that the petitioner is entitled to police protection for free ingress and egress of vehicles, provided no loading and unloading workers other than the petitioner, his sister and father are employed by the petitioner for the work of loading and unloading. Of course, this shall not fetter the petitioner's right to employ other validly registered workmen if any. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/