IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28639 of 2011(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- N.P. MUHAMMED, PARTNER, 'TILES PARK', OPPOSITE AQUARIUM NORTH BEACH ROAD, CALICUT- 673 032. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER, SMT.P.A.ANEESHA. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VELLAYIL POLICE STATION, CALICUT- 673 001. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, S.R.M. ROAD, COCHIN- 18. 3. SECRETARY, CITU, GANDHI ROAD SECTION, KOZHIKODE- 673 032. 4. SECRETARY, INTUC, VELLAYIL SECTION KOZHIKODE- 673 032. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.K. ABOOBACKER. R2 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB. R3 BY ADV. MR.R. SUDHISH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 28639 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD. EXHIBIT P1(a). THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD. EXHIBIT P2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 28639 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim,J. Petitioner is seeking police protection for the loading unloading works at their godown engaging their own permanent workers, who are having registration under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules. The allegation is that the respondents 3 and 4 unions and their members are causing physical obstructions to such works. It is stated that Exts.P1 and P1(a) are the identity Cards issued to the permanent workers attached to the petitioner's firm. Grievance of the petitioner is that, inspite of submitting Ext.P2 complaint before the 1st respondent, no action has been taken to remove the illegal obstructions. 2. Heard; learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 Unions. It is contended that, under the guise of the order of police protection the petitioner is attempting to employ unregistered workers. It is further contended that the registration as evidenced by Exts.P1 and P1(a) has been WP(C) .28639/2011 2 granted without conducting any enquiry, to persons who are not permanent workers of the petitioner. 3. Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the place wherein the godown is situated is an area where the functional implementation of the welfare scheme formulated under the Headload Workers Act, is in operation. 4. From the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we are of the opinion that as long as the permanent workers have got registration under Rule 26A, the petitioner is entitled to engage them for the loading unloading works in their godown. If the respondents 3 and 4 have got any grievance regarding granting of registration to those workers, they are at liberty to seek appropriate statutory remedy by way of appeal in order to challenge such registration. We find that the respondents 3 and 4 have no manner of right to create any physical obstructions to the works of the petitioner being done through their attached permanent workers. 5. Therefore we dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to take effective steps to remove obstructions if any reported with respect to the loading unloading works of the WP(C) .28639/2011 3 petitioner being done through the permanent workers having registration under Rule 26A , and to afford protection for such work if the obstruction continues. 6. We make it clear that if the petitioner requires any additional workers he shall engage only the workers included in the pool constituted under the scheme, which is in operation in the area in question. It is also made clear that the direction of police protection granted above will be subject to final decision in the appeal if any filed against the granting of registration. Needless to clarify that the direction will be confined only with respect to the godown of the petitioner's establishment situated in the compound in question. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/