IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26699 of 2008(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ABDUL MAJEED, NAUFAL MANZIL, KUKKURUNNI, KATTAKADA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM, SRI.JOY C. PAUL, SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SECRETARY, HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (C.I.T.U.), SABHAPATHI KOVIL STREET, CHALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SOMARAJAN (NO.1559) CHALA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, CHALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, DISTRICT COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,FORT STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL, ADV. SRI. RENIL ANTO, ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, ADV. SRI.DIPU.R, ADV. SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW, ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.26699/2008-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/03/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 11/08/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 21/08/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.4. DTD. 21/08/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 08/09/2008 FILED UNDER PARAGRAPH 6E. EXT.R1.B COLLECTIVELY: COPIES OF THE LETTERS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER REGARDING HIS RESIGNATION. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.26699 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is a head load worker having registration under the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules as also under the Head Load Workers Welfare Scheme. As evident from Exhibit P1, the Headload Workers Welfare Board, Thiruvananthapuram has alloted him to Chalai Warehouse pool for work. The petitioner submits, pursuant to the said proceedings, he was working in that pool. While so, respondents 1 and 2 started causing physical obstruction to the petitioner. Therefore, he moved the police by filing Exhibit P5 representation. Before that he has moved the Head Load Workers Welfare Board by filing Exhibits P3 and P4 representations. Since, the police did not extend any protection to him, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit. According to them Exhibit P1 to the extent it concerns the writ petitioner is illegal. They have already invoked the statutory W.P.(C)No.26699/08 -2- remedy against it by filing Exhibit R1(a) appeal before the statutory appellate authority. They point out that the petitioner has resigned from the work so as to enable his son-in-law Shahul Hameed to get the work. Based on the motion made by the petitioner, his son-in-law was inducted as a head load worker. In the meantime, the petitioner went to gulf countries. Now, after his return, his son-in-law has resigned, so as to enable the father-in-law, the petitioner, to get the work. Such substitution of headload worker is not permissible in law and therefore there is every chance of the appeal filed by them being allowed, it is submitted. They also deny the fact that on the strength of Exhibit P1, the petitioner was working in the pool. 3. The 3rd respondent Head Load Workers Welfare Board supported the claim of the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that there is no law and order problem, warranting interference by the police. 5. As long as Exhibit P1 proceeding remains in force, the petitioner is entitled to do the work in the Chalai Warehouse Pool. If there is any physical obstruction to the petitioner from the part of respondents 1 and 2 or their supporters, he may inform the 4th W.P.(C)No.26699/08 -3- respondent. In that event, the 4th respondent shall remove the obstruction. But this direction will be subject to the decision in Exhibit R1(a). In other words, if Exhibit R1(a) is allowed, the direction to grant police protection will stand vacated. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn