IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 1504 of 2010(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MALABAR MACHINE METALS, VATTAPONTHA, KANNAMANGALAM P.O., VENGARA (VIA)-676 318, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, E.K.ALI MOIDEEN. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, HEAD LOAD WORKERS & GENERAL WORKERS UNION (INTUC), CHRUPPADI UNIT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 1507 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.1504/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE KANNAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT DTD. 17.8.2009. P2:- COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE CRUSHER OWNERS ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHER CRUSHER UNITS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.D 4.1.2010. P3:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN WP(C) NO.1093/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 11TH OCTOBER 2010 IN WPC. NO. 1093/2010 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC Nos.1504, 1507, 1508, 1509 and 1510 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioners in these five petitions have come to this Court with the prayer that police protection may be afforded to them to get the work of loading and unloading in their establishments done by registered attached workers of their establishment. These petitions were filed as early as on 15.1.2010. Interim directions were issued to the police to maintain law and order. Those orders have remained in force all through. 2. The leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that the establishments of the petitioners are all situated in an area which is not covered by any scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act. Though, according to the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to get the work done by their permanent workmen even if they are not registered, in these petitions, the petitioners are only requesting that they may be permitted to get their work done through registered WPC No.1504/2010 & connected cases 2 workers of their choice. Requisite registration has been obtained under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Rules for such workmen and in these circumstances, the party respondent Union has no justification to obstruct the work. 3. The third respondent has entered appearance. The learned counsel for the third respondent does not dispute the fact that the area in question is an area not covered by any scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act. The learned counsel for the third respondent further submits that the third respondent has no intention to obstruct the loading and unloading work in the establishment of the petitioners being carried out by the workmen who are duly registered under Rule 26A. However, the learned counsel for the third respondent submits that during the pendency of these writ petitions, the work was being done by the members of the third respondent union. That assertion is denied by the petitioners. 4. Be that as it may, we take note that the third respondent does not oppose the prayer of the petitioners WPC No.1504/2010 & connected cases 3 that registered workmen of the choice of the petitioners must be permitted to undertake the work. The petitioners are in law certainly entitled to get the work done by the registered workmen of their choice. We are not going into the larger question in these petitions as to whether even without registration, the petitioners are entitled to get such work done. 5. In the result, these petitions are allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 shall afford necessary protection to the petitioners against any obstruction by the third respondent to get the work of loading and unloading of the petitioners done/performed by the workmen who are registered under Rule 26A. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/