IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6107 of 2011(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MRS.ROSE MARIA SEBASTIAN, KUTTANCHIRAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPALLY P.O., MANAGING PARTNER, ST.GEORGE TRADERS, CHEPPUPARA. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU SRI.SHINE MATHEWS(VADAKKEKARA) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONKUNNAM-686 506. 2. HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION (CITU), PONKUNNAM UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS LOCAL SECRETARY I.S.RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT VALIPLACKAL HOUSE, P.N.P.ROAD, PONKUNNAM- 686 506. 3. HEADLOAD WORKERS MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), PONKUNNAM UNIT, FIRST FLOOR, AMBADIYIL BUILDINGS, POST OFFICE ROAD, PONKUNNAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNIT SECRETARY SHRI.V.S.PRASHAD, VETTIYANKAL, CHRIAKADAVU CENTRE P.O., POIN 686520. 4. HEADLOAD WORKERS ASSOCIATION (AITUC), PONKUNNAM UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS LOCAL SECRETARY K.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KALARIPLACKAL HOUSE, CHENNAKKUNNAM P.O., PIN 686 506. 5. HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION (INTUC), PONKUNNAM UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS LOCAL SECRETARY P.A.MATHEW, RESIDING AT PUNNATHANAM, 19TH MILE, CHENKAL, VAZHOOR EAST P.O., PIN 686 504. WP(C).No. 6107 of 2011(K) - 2 - 6. HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION, PONKUNNAM UNIT, AFFILIATED TO CENTRAL KERALA TRADE UNION (CKTU), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THANKACHAN K.J., KANDATHINKAL, 1ST MILE, P.P.ROAD, PONKUNNAM-686 506. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM FOR R2 SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB FOR ADDL.R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6107 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED ON 27.01.2011 TO SRI.AJESH B.NAIR. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED ON 27.01.2011 TO SRI.AJITH B.NAIR. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED ON 27.01.2011 TO SRI.JOSHY JOSEPH. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED ON 27.01.2011 TO SRI.BIJU JACOB. EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED ON 27.01.2011 TO SRI.PRASAD.M. EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.02.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT DATED 21.02.2011 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ R.BASANT & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.6107 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner, a woman, has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondent No.1 to afford police protection to the petitioner against violent, culpable and illegal conduct by respondents 2 to 6, who allegedly attempt to obstruct the petitioner from carrying on the work of loading and unloading materials in connection with her business. 2. According to the petitioner, permanent attached workmen of hers have been registered as loading and unloading workers under Rule 26 A of the Headload Workers Rules. In spite of such registration, respondents 2 to 6, who claim monopoly rights to do loading and unloading work, are not permitting the petitioner to get the work done by her permanent attached workers, who hold valid registration under Rule 26 A of the Headload Workers Rules. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. W.P(C) No.6107 of 2011 2 3. Respondents 2 to 6 have been served. Only the 2nd respondent has chosen to enter appearance and resist the prayer in this Writ Petition. The 2nd respondent contends that registration cards for permanent attached workmen of the petitioner have been secured without observing the requisite procedure under the statute. The registration given to the permanent attached workers of the petitioner must hence be reckoned as void and nonest, submits the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent raises a further grievance that the petitioner, who has obtained the requisite licence from the local authority only on 02.02.2011, is raising a grievance against obstruction to work on 01.01.2011. That reveals absence of bona fides on the part of the petitioner, it is further contended. 5. As directed by this Court on 03.03.2011, notice was given to the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board. The Standing Counsel for the Board has entered appearance. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that the area is a scheme covered area. It is true that the petitioner has obtained registration for her permanent attached workmen W.P(C) No.6107 of 2011 3 under Rule 26 A of the Headload Workers Rules. The 1st respondent has challenged such registration before the competent authority. The Board has also been advised to prefer an appeal against such registration, as such registration was allegedly granted without notice to the Board. The learned Standing Counsel points out that the appellate authority has now got to consider whether the grant of registration for the permanent attached workmen is valid or not. Any decision in the matter can only be subject to the decision of the appellate authority on that appeal, submits the learned counsel for the Board. 6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the 2nd respondent's appeal is pending before the District Labour Officer, Kottayam, and the decision is awaited. 7. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The petitioner has a valid registration for her permanent attached workmen. Until such registration is cancelled, modified or altered by the appellate authority, respondents 2 to 6 are bound to respect such registration. Of course, if registration is not there, no orders are liable to be passed against respondents 2 to 6. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that this petition can W.P(C) No.6107 of 2011 4 be allowed subject to the interim or final orders to be passed in the appeal pending before the appellate authority on the registration granted to the permanent attached workmen of the petitioner. 8. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) The 1st respondent is directed to afford protection to the petitioner to get the work of loading and unloading done in her establishment making use of the services of permanent attached workmen registered under Rule 26 A of the Headload Workers Rules under Exhibits P1 to P5; c) This direction, we make it clear, is subject to the interim or final orders to be passed in the appeal against grant of registration to the permanent attached workmen of the petitioner under Rule 26 A. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) rtr/