IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 27705 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. VYAPARI VYAVASAI EKOPANA SAMITHI, VADANAPPALLY,VYAPARA BHAVAN,VADANAPPALLY(PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.D.XAVIER. 2. GEORGE A ALAPATT,PRESIDENT,VYAPARI VYAVASAI EKOPANA SAMITHI,VADANAPPALLY, VYAPARA BHAVAN,VADANAPPALLY(PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION,VADANAPPALLY(P.O), THRISSUR DISTRICT.680001. 2. THE CITU UNION (HEAD LOAD WORKERS), VADANAPALLY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.M.ABDUL RAHMAN,CITU UNION OFFICE, VADANAPPALLY(P.O),THRISSUR DISTRICT.680001. 3. THE AITUC UNION(HEAD LOAD WORKERS), VADANAPALLY,REPRESENTD BY ITS SECRETARY C.K.RAMDAS AITUC UNION OFFICE,VADANAPPALLY(P.O), THRISSUR DISTRICT.680001. 4. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,DISTRICT COMMITTEE,THRISSUR,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,OFFICE OF THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,THRISSUR.68002 R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY. R4 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 28117 OF 2010 WPC NO. 27443 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.27705/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF WAGES FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING WORKS APPLICABLE FORM 18.10.2009 VALID UPTO 17.11.01 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENTS. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.1.9.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 1.9.10. P4:- COPY OF THE REGISTRATIOIN CERTIFICATE OF VADANAPPALLY UNIT OF KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAI EKOPANA SAMITHI. P5:- LIST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION. P6:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 25.9.10 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY TO THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION STATING THAT THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION IS A UNIT REGISTERED UNDER THE KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAI EKOPANA SAMITHI P7:- COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BYELAWS OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss K.M.JOSEPH & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C) Nos.27705, 27443 & 28117 OF 2010 ============================ Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. The writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. WP(C) Nos. 27743 and 27705 of 2010 are filed by Vyapari Vyavasai Ekopana Samithi of Kandassamkadavu Market and Vadanappally areas. WP(C)No.28117 of 2010 is filed by two individual manufacturers of bakery items and flour in Karamukku village. They have approached this court complaining of obstruction by members of the party respondent union to carry out the loading and unloading works by the members of the petitioner samithi in WP(C)Nos.27705 and 27443 of 2010 and by the petitioners in WP(C)No.28117 of 2010. 2. According to them, there was an agreement between them and union as regards the rates. However, union demanded 27% increase and therefore they decided to do it all by themselves. They are obstructed. 3. A counter affidavit is filed in WP(C)No.27443 of 201. Wpc 27705/2010 & conn.cases 2 They dispute the case of the petitioner that they are demanding 27% increase in wages. According to them, actual increase represents contribution which parties must make to funds after joining the scheme. It is contended that the scheme is applicable and that they must necessarily engage the head load workers. They have produced Ext.R2(a) and (b). The Board also filed a counter affidavit. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the party unions, learned counsel for the Board and learned Government Pleader. 5. There is no dispute regarding certain facts. The scheme is applicable in the area. Nothing is brought out by the party respondents in the Act and Rules, to show that it is not open to the members of the first petitioner in both WP(C) Nos. 27705 and 28817 of 2010 to do the loading and unloading work by themselves or that they have to employ the service of the registered workers even after the scheme has been made applicable. In the light of this, the conclusion is inescapable that if the members of the petitioner samithi or other petitioners i Wp (C)28117 of 2010 do the work of loading and unloading by themselves, in their respective establishments and if any Wpc 27705/2010 & conn.cases 3 obstruction is made by the members of the respondent union, police have duty to prevent such obstruction. Learned counsel for the party respondents submits that they have never obstructed. In such circumstances, we dispose of these writ petitions as follows:- 6.. In the light of the stand of the party respondents that they have never obstructed, which we record, we direct further that as and when petitioners in WP(C) Nos.27743 and 27705 of 2010 complain of any obstruction by members of the party unions, in loading and unloading works done by the proprietors of the shops in respect of shops of the petitioners who are members of the petitioner, samithi, and also where partnership deeds have been executed prior to 20.9.2010, the partners whose names appear in Ext.P7 in WP(C)Nos.27443 and in Ext.P5 in 27705 of 2010, the first respondent i both the cases, shall look into the complaint of obstruction and if it is found to be genuine, he shall provide protection for the proprietors and partners as aforesaid to carry out loading and unloading work in their respective establishments against any such obstruction. 7. Regarding WP(C)No.28117 of 2010, there will be a direction to the second respondent that if the petitioner's Wpc 27705/2010 & conn.cases 4 complain of any obstruction by respondents 3 to 6 and members of respondents 7 to 9, obstructing them in their loading and unloading work, the 2nd respondent will look into the same and if it is found genuine, he shall provide protection for the petitioners to carry out loading and unloading work by themselves in their establishment as against any obstruction from respondents 3 to 6 and members of respondents 7 to 9 as and when required. We also make it clear that this will not stand in the way of the members of the petitioner samithi and petitioners in other writ petition in seeking to get themselves registered and with the Board or seeking the benefit of the service of registered workers if they are so advised to do so. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE lgk