IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 26017 of 2011(B) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SUSHEELA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. SASI, V.K.313, AISWARYA VEGETABLES SHOP, VITHURA KALINGU JUNCTION, VITHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.M.N.MAYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VITHURA POLICE STATION, PIN-695 551. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VITHURA POLICE STATION, PIN-695 551. 3. V.K.50, LOADING AND UNLOADING WORKERS UNION, REP.BY SHAHABDEEN CONVENOR, VITHURA KALINGU JUNCTION, VITHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.-695 551. WP(C).No. 26017 of 2011(B) -2- * ADDL.R4- THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, (LOCAL COMMITTEE),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *(ADDL.R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.09.2011 IN W.P(C)) ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER FOR R3 SRI.KOSHY GEORGE SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26017 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.13/06/11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.26017 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This Writ Petition under Article 226 is filed by the petitioner, a lady who is conducting a vegetable shop at Vithura by name “Aiswarya Vegetables Shop”. The case of the petitioner is that it is a small time vegetable shop that she is conducting. She does not require the service of loading and unloading workers. Vegetables are brought to her vegetable shop in goods carrier autorickshaw. As the vegetable is coming in autorickshaw, the vegetables can be unloaded directly into the shop and hence, services of headload workers are not necessary. The 3rd respondent who represents the Union in which the workers of the pool which is allotted to the present area have raised a contention that the intention of the petitioner is to bye-pass the provisions of the Headload Workers Welfare Fund Act and the Rules W. P. C. No.26017 of 2011 -2- framed thereunder. 2. Additional 4th respondent the Headloadworkers Welfare Fund Board is impleaded as Additional 4th respondent and it is submitted by the Standing Counsel for the additional 4th respondent that the area in question is where the Headload Workers Welfare Scheme has been implemented and therefore, as the petitioner does not have registered workers of her own the petitioner is bound to engage the workers from the pool which is allotted to the area. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the additional 4th respondent that the case of the petitioner that the vegetables are brought to her shop only in autorickshaws and that the services of headload workers are unnecessary is highly improbable. 3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having scanned the pleadings raised by the parties, we are of the view that the petitioner is not justified in seeking police protection for the purpose of bye-passing the provisions of the Headload Workers Welfare Fund W. P. C. No.26017 of 2011 -3- scheme which is implemented in the area. Whenever the petitioner needs service of workers she has to engage the pool workers who owe allegiance to the 3rd respondent Union. This judgment, however will not stand in the way of the petitioner herself doing the loading and unloading works. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. To Judge