IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26421 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SARITHA KANNAN,KANNAKARA THARAYIL, MAHADEVIKADU P.O.,KARTHIKAPPALLY- 690565 BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM - 695 061. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA - 695 080. 3. RAJENDRAN, REMYA BHAVANAM, MAHADEVIKADU P.O.,KARTHIKAPPALLY-690565 4. BIJU, POOCHAVATHUKKAL, MAHADEVIKADU P.O.,KARITHIKAPPALLY, PIN-690565 5. BINU, POOCHAVATHUKKAL, MAHADEVIKADU P.O.,KARITHIKAPPALLY, PIN-690565 6. BAIJU @ KANNAN,POOCHAVATHUKKAL, MAHADEVIKADU P.O.,KARITHIKAPPALLY, PIN-690565 7. SANCHU, UPPUVARATHU CHIRAYIL, MAHADEVIKADU P.O.,KARTHIKAPPALLY, 690565 8. RAJAN,UPPUVARATHU CHIRAYIL, MAHADEVIKADU P.O.,KARTHIKAPPALLY, 690565 R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DINESH MATHER MANJOORAN R3-8 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 26421/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29/09/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPIES OF THE REGISTRATION CARDS IN RESPECT OF THE ATTACHED WORKERS OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 26421 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim,J. The petitioner is running a small scale industry engaged in the manufacture of 'coir yarn' under the name and style 'Hein Rich Wolfi Coir Works'. It is stated that the petitioner's husband, her father and herself are involved in the activities in the unit. The allegations in the writ petition is that unloading of 'coir fibre' which is brought to the industry in bundles, by the petitioner and her family members are obstructed by respondents 3 to 8, who claim that they alone are entitled to do the loading and unloading works in the petitioner's industry. Eventhough the petitioner approached the 1st respondent through Ext.P1 complaint, no steps has been taken, and hence this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 8 contended that the petitioner is illegally employing workers who are not registered under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, for the loading-unloading works in the industry. WPC.26421/2011 2 According to the party respondents they are general Headload workers engaged in the area in question having registration under Rule 26A. Along with the reply affidavit the petitioner had produced Ext.P4 series Identity Cards obtained by three of the workers permanently engaged by the petitioner, under Rule 26A. It is evident that the registration was granted to them as permanently attached workers of the petitioner's industry. Hence it is contended that the dispute now raised by the party respondents is not sustainable. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that steps are being taken to challenge the registration granted to the attached workers, before the appellate authority concerned. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the instructions received from the police, submitted that Crime No.293/2011 of Thrikkunnapuzha Police has already been registered against the party respondents on the basis of complaint of the petitioner. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances and the rival contentions, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to do all the works in the industry including the WPC.26421/2011 3 loading-unloading works by herself and her family members and by engaging her own permanent workers having registration under Rule 26A. The respondents 3 to 8 have no manner of right to create any obstruction to the functioning of the petitioner's industry in this regard. 5. Therefore we dispose of the writ petition directing respondents 1 and 2 to take effective steps to remove such obstruction if any caused. 6. It is made clear that the above direction will not stand in the way of respondents 3 to 8 pursuing statutory remedy of appeal against the registration granted to the workers attached to the industry. The respondents 1 and 2 shall also ensure that no threat or intimidation is caused to the life of the petitioner, her family members and workers. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WPC.26421/2011 4