IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 21882 of 2011(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JACOB K.BABU,DIRECTOR, MODUS LOGISTICS PVT.LTD, KONGORPILLY P.O, ALANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SMT.PREEJA. P.VIJAYAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVUR 683 513. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, NORTH PARAVUR 683 513. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, VARAPUZHA 683 515 4. THE SECREARY, HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU) ALANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 683 525. 5. THE SECRETARY, HEAD LOAD (GENERAL) WORKERS UNION (INTUC) KOONAMMAVU UNIT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - PIN 683 518. Kss ..2/- ..2.... WPC.NO.21882/2011 I 6. THE SECRETARY, AITUC UNIT, ALANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 525. 7. THE SECRETARY, BHARATHIYA MAZDOOR SANGH, PARAVOOR MEGHALA SAMITHI ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 513. ADDL.R8 IMPLEADED: R8. MOHAN KUMAR,M/S ASSOCIATED AGENCIES, C&F AGENT OF LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT LTD., MODUS LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.KONGORPILLY, ALANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISRICT - 683 518 (IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.8TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 17/8/11 IN IA 13617/11). ADDL.R9 IMPLEADED: R9. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND, THIRUVANANTHPURAM - IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 9TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 22.08.2011. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M.CHARISMA R5 BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, SRI.JAGAN GEORGE, SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD, SRI.P.G.PRAMOD. R7 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH R8 BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH R9 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.21882/2011 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF IDENTITY CARDS OF PETITIONER'S OWN EMPLOYEES. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 27/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21882 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The petitioner is seeking police protection for smooth conduct of the loading and unloading works in his warehouse, located within the limits of Alangad Panchayat. The petitioner is dealing in electronic equipments. According to the petitioner, he has got 12 permanent employees having registration under Rule 26 A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rule and those workers are doing the loading and unloading works in the warehouse. It is contended that those employees are specially trained for handling the sophisticated electronic equipments. Grievance of the petitioner is that, the members of respondents 4 to 7 unions are creating obstructions to the ingress and egress and vehicular movement to godown, claiming the works under the petitioner, on the premise 2 W.P.(C) No.21882 of 2011 that they alone are entitled to do the loading and unloading works in all the establishments situated in the area. It is also alleged that the respondents 4 to 7 demanded amounts as 'nokkukooli'. Eventhough the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint to respondents 1 to 3, about the illegal obstructions, no action was taken. Hence this writ petition is filed seeking police protection. 2. We heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 5 and 7. A contention was raised to the effect that, Ext.P1 series identity cards will reveal that the holders of those identity cards are workers attached to another firm, M/S.Associated Agencies and that they are not workers of the petitioner's establishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that said firm is also a sister concern and both the establishments are working in the same premises. It is further contended by the respondents that the area in question is covered under the Scheme, which is formulated under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act and that the petitioner is not entitled to engage workers 3 W.P.(C) No.21882 of 2011 who are not permanently attached to his establishment, and who are not having registration to that effect. 3. In view of the controversy raised, we have suo moto impleaded the Chief Executive Officer of the Head Load Workers Welfare Board, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner had filed an application seeking impleadment of the owner of the sister concern, namely 'M/s.Associated Agencies'. Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the additional 8th respondent submitted that, both the establishments are functioning in the same premises and the workers covered under Ext.P1 identity cards are doing the loading and unloading works with respect to both the establishments. Standing counsel appearing for the additional 9th respondent, the Head Load Workers Welfare Board, submitted that the scheme in question is not extended to the area in question and the functional operation of the scheme has not been implemented in that area. Eventhough learned counsel for the 5th respondent had disputed the above statement, he could not produce any 4 W.P.(C) No.21882 of 2011 materials to the contrary. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances prevailing, as well as the rival contentions on either side, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to do the loading and unloading works in his warehouse by engaging workers of his own choice. It is evident that the establishment of 8th respondent is also functioning in the very same premises and both the establishments are engaging the very same workers. We are not in a position to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to engage those workers for the loading and unloading work, because it is not a scheme covered area. Therefore, we find that the members of respondents 4 to 7 have no manner of right to claim the works of the petitioner or to obstruct the petitioner from doing the loading and unloading works by engaging workers of his own choice. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 3 to take effective steps if intimation is received with respect to any 5 W.P.(C) No.21882 of 2011 physical obstructions caused by the members of respondents 4 to 7 or anybody claiming under them. Necessary protection shall be afforded for the smooth functioning of the petitioner's establishment and the loading and unloading works being done in his warehouse by engaging workers of his own choice. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/