IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 14987 of 2011(W) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- A.ABDUL JABBAR,S/O.EASSA HAJI,AGED 45 YEARS, KOTTILE VALAPPIL HOUSE,MATTOOL SOUTH PO, MATTOOL AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVAN UNNI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 141. 2. SWATHANTRA THOZHILALI UNION,TALIPARAMBA MARKET AREA, NEAR ANSAR MASJID,TALIPARAMBA PO, KANNUR DISTRICT,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY 670 141. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KANNUR 670 001. 4. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE HOME SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. * ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED 5. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA, TALIPARAMBA P.O.,KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 141. * R5 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 08/06/2011 IN I.A. NO.8692/2011 IN WPC. NO.14987/2011. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN SRI.KISHOR B. SRI.TOMS MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 14987/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30/05/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14987 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The petitioner is a head load worker having registration under Rule 26 A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, as per Ext.P1 Identity Card. The area of work mentioned in Ext.P1 is 'Taliparamba Market'. According to the petitioner, he was suffering from Epilepsy and has to abstain from work for a short period. The petitioner claims that he was a member of the 2nd respondent union. The Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983, was extended in operation in 'Taliparamba Market' area. Grievance voiced by the petitioner is that, the 2nd respondent union, which is now keeping a hostile attitude to the petitioner, is not permitting the petitioner to do the works on the basis of Ext.P1 in the area in question, and that they are physically causing obstruction. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is attempting to induct another person in the place of the petitioner. 2 W.P.(C) No.14987 of 2011 Eventhough the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the 1st respondent, no effective steps are taken to afford protection to his life and to avert the obstruction caused by the members of the 2nd respondent. Hence this writ petition is filed. 2. We heard learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent union. It is contended that the functional operation of the scheme has been implemented in the area in question. But the petitioner has not registered under the provisions of the scheme and therefore he was not included in the pool created for the area notified. According to the said respondent, no person included in the pool and not registered under the Scheme, is entitled to do loading-unloading works in the area. 3. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the issue is in the nature of a labour dispute, which need be resolved by the competent authority under the relevant statute, and the police cannot afford protection causing prejudice to any of the parties. 4. Taking note of the legal position, since the functional operation of the scheme has been implemented in the area in question, the petitioner is not entitled to do loading- unloading works in the area, unless he has got registration under 3 W.P.(C) No.14987 of 2011 Clause 6 of the Scheme and included in the pool notified. It would always be left open to the petitioner to take recourse to such registration or to raise a dispute before the competent authority as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act or Rules and Scheme framed thereunder. Since it is evident that the petitioner is not a registered worker under the scheme, we are of the opinion that police protection cannot be afforded. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to resort to appropriate steps for getting registration or to pursue dispute if any before the competent authority. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/