IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21023 of 2011(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ANOOP CHANDRAN,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.P.N.CHANDRAN ANOOP CHANDRAN,PROPRIETOR,PRITHVI INDANE SERVICES, JALALIYA COMPLEX,MASJID ROAD, ALUVA - 683 101. BY ADVS. SRI.E.S.M.KABEER, SMT.P.DEEPA MOHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALUVA POLICE STATION, ALUVA – 683 101. 2. K.S.PAREETH,SECRETARY, HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, (COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA TRADE UNION) NELLIKKATTUKADU UNIT,MANAKKAPPADY,ASOKAPURAM, ALUVA- 683 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, ALUVA – 683 101. R1 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.21023/2011-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT OF DISTRIBUTORSHIP ISSUED BY THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION DTD. 28/10/10. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES DTD. 19/10/2010. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DTD. 08/04/2011. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, ALUVA ON 20/07/2011. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21023 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The petitioner is running a gas agency at Masjid Road, Aluva, under dealership of Indian Oil Corporation. It is stated that, the business in question was started during November 2010 and there are about 3,500 consumers. According to the petitioner, he has got four workers permanently engaged for doing all works including the loading and unloading works. Grievance of the petitioner is that, the loading and unloading works at the godown of the petitioner at 'Nochima' is being obstructed by the 2nd respondent and workers belonging to his Union. It is alleged that the head load workers under the 2nd respondent union were doing the loading and unloading works in the petitioner's godown at a rate of Rs.500/- per load. But now, the 2nd respondent is claiming an exorbitant hike to the extent of Rs.1,530/- per load. According to the petitioner, the rate fixed by the Local Committee of the Head 2 W.P.(C) No.21023 of 2011 Load Workers' Welfare Board formed under the scheme has fixed the rate of wages for loading and unloading of the gas cylinders, as Rs.500/- per load. Eventhough the petitioner is prepared to pay the said amount the 2nd respondent had caused physical obstruction demanding the exorbitant rate. It is contended by the petitioner that the functional operation of the scheme under the Head Load Workers Act has not implemented in the area in question, and hence the members of the 2nd respondent has no manner of right to claim the work or to cause any obstruction to the petitioner doing such works by engaging his own permanent workers. 2. Under such circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 before the Assistant Labour Officer, Aluva to intervene into the dispute and to fix the rate of wages. Eventhough a conciliation was conducted by the said authority, the 2nd respondent took an adamant stand. Now the 2nd respondent had openly declared that he will not permit the petitioner to do the loading and unloading works engaging his own permanent workers. Since the threat and obstruction continued, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 complaint to the 3 W.P.(C) No.21023 of 2011 1st respondent. But no effective steps were taken against such obstruction or to afford protection to the work of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition is filed. 3. Inspite of service of notice from this Court, the 2nd respondent has not entered appearance nor had chosen to contest the matter. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 submitted that, on the basis of the conciliation steps initiated by the 3rd respondent, the matter is now pending before the District Labour Officer and so far no amicable settlement could be arrived. Since it is a labour dispute, the 1st respondent had not interfered. 4. Considering the fact that the functional operation of the scheme formulated under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act has not been implemented in the area wherein the gas agency of the petitioner is situated, the 2nd respondent or anybody else is entitled to raise any claim for the work of the petitioner as a matter of right. The petitioner could not be obstructed in any manner in doing the loading and unloading work by engaging his own permanent workers. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the 1st respondent had an 4 W.P.(C) No.21023 of 2011 obligation to afford protection to the work of loading and unloading of the gas cylinders carried out by the petitioner by engaging his own permanent workers. However, if any competent authority takes a decision regarding the right of the 2nd respondent, the same will be applicable, and the protection directed herein will be subject to such orders. 5. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take effective steps to remove physical obstruction if any caused to the work of the petitioner being done by engaging the permanent labourers and to afford adequate protection for the smooth conduct of the loading and unloading works in the godown, and functioning of the gas agency. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/