IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH MAY 2009 / 25TH VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13441 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DAVID BANFER,S/O.MICHAEL SWAMY, AGED 36 YRS,VELLACHIKULAM,PARISHAKALLU.PO,CHITOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. I.N.T.U.C,MANIKARAN CHALLA UNIT, PARISHAKALLU.PO,MENONPARA VIA,KOZHINJAMPARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,AROGYA SWAMY, S/O.SEBASTIAN. ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN FOR R2 GP SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13441 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE VADAKARAPATHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 29.4.09 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.4.09 ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.5.2009 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ ------------------- W.P.(C).13441/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 15th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Giri, J Petitioner started an artificial sand manufacturing unit and the licenses were issued by the Vadakarapathy Grama Panchayat. Quarrying waste is stated to be unloaded in the petitioner's site using tipper lorries. According to the petitioner, the entire loading and unloading work is carried on by mechanical devices and he does not require the service of any head load worker. In spite of the same, second respondent had demanded wages without executing any work. When the petitioner refused to pay the wages, they started obstructing the work, it is contended. Hence, Ext.P2 complaint was presented by the petitioner before the first respondent. W.P.(C).13441/2009 2 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent wherein it is contended that the Assistant Labour Officer had already issued identity cards as evidenced by Ext.R2(b). According to him, they have moved the Assistant Labour Officer with a complaint, Ext.R2(a), against the petitioner continuing loading and unloading work. 3. The area is a scheme covered area. Unless the petitioner has permanent loading and unloading workers who are also registered under the Act, he would normally have engaged the services of the Port head load workers. But in the present case, no manual loading and unloading is done. This aspect has not been categorically denied by the contesting respondents. 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent to render adequate protection to the petitioner to carry on his activities in his Unit. W.P.(C).13441/2009 3 The Assistant Labour Officer shall, if not already done, proceed to take a decision on Ext.R2(a) and final decision taken by the statutory authorities shall be binding on the parties. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge mrcs