IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17629 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.MAHESH KUMAR, DEPOT MANAGER, PARENTERAL DRUGS (I) LIMITED, TC NO.68/2311(1), SASTA COTTAGE, NEAR VENGARA TEMPLE, KOVALAM BYE PASS ROAD, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE KERALA CHUMATTUTHOZHILALI CONGRESS, THIRUVALLAM UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR. 6. HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR. W.P.(C) No.17629 of 2009 : 2 : 7. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CHUMATTU THOZHILALI UNION, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR. 8. HEADLOAD AND GENERAL MAZDOOR SANGH, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR. BY ADV. SMT.S.MUMTAZ FOR R5 TO 8 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.17629/2009 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 8/6/05 IN W.P.(C) No.16401/05 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED SUBMITTED BY SATHYAN. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED SUBMITTED BY SISUPALAN. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 20.6.2009 FROM THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL NO.KHLA.G2/912/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE MEMBERS OF RESPONDENTS 5-8. EXT.R5(b) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT LODGED BY RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 17629 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and necessary protection to the petitioner and his employees to carry out the loading and unloading work in the depot of Parenteral Drugs (I) Limited at Thiruvallam, Thiruvananthapuram, without any obstruction from respondents 5 to 8 and their supporters. 2. According to the petitioner, he is running a depot of pharmaceutical company. He has three registered employees for carrying out the loading and unloading work. On an earlier occasion, the Manager has filed a writ petition before this Court seeking protection, when there was obstruction caused by respondents 3 to 6 therein, and this Court by Ext.P1 judgment W.P.(C) No.17629 of 2009 2 made it clear that if the petitioner is engaging persons holding identity cards, unless and until the same are cancelled by any statutory authority, the petitioner therein is entitled to employ such registered workers. It is also directed that so long as the work of loading and unloading is carried on by the registered workers, there cannot be any obstruction, at the instance of respondents 3 to 6. In case of any obstruction, there was a direction to the police to give necessary protection. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that two of the registered workmen engaged by him had already left the service and now two persons have joined in their place. It is also stated that applications for registration has also been made as contemplated under Rule 26A of the Rules for loading and unloading work. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that this is not a scheme covered area. Petitioner is running a pharmaceutical company and necessarily materials brought has to be unloaded which is incidental to the work of the W.P.(C) No.17629 of 2009 3 establishment. So long as the petitioner is engaging the registered workmen including the two newly joined workmen, in respect of them applications had been submitted for registration, there will not be any obstruction caused by respondents 5 to 8 and their supporters. However, it is open to the party respondents, if they are otherwise aggrieved, to approach the authority before whom the applications for registration are pending, and the authority will take a decision in the matter within two weeks. In case, registration in respect of two workmen is not granted, then the petitioner will not be entitled to continue such workmen, until that decision is reversed by any competent court. In the meantime, if there is any obstruction from party respondents, police shall give necessary protection. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.