IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6794 of 2010(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ABDUL SALAM, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, SALAM MANZIL, POREDOM, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM. 4. ASST.LABOUR OFFICER, NILAMEL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. RAGHAVAN, ANIL MANDIRAM, KALLIKKADU WARD, CHADAYAMANGALAM PACHAYATH (CONVENOR) CITU HEAD LOAD UNIT KAKKODU. 6. CHANDRAN PILLAI, APARNA NIVAS, KALLIKKADU WARD, CHADAYAMANGALAM PANCHAYATH (CONVENER) BMS HEAD LOAD UNIT, KAKKODU. 7. SAJI, SAJI NIVAS, KALLIKKADU WARD, CHADAYAMANGALAM PANCHAYATH (CONVENER), AITUC HEAD LOAD UNIT, KAKKODU. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R5 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.6794/2010 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 18.12.2009. EXT.P2.THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.2.2010. EXT.P3.THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 20.2.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5A.TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 5TH RSPONDENT VIDE REGISTER NO.02/05/4230/02 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.R5B.TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 6TH RESPNDENT VIDE NO.02/05/4432/02 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER KOTTRAAKKARA. EXT.R5C. TRUE COPY OF AN AGREEMENT DATED 14.11.2008 EXECUTED BY THE EMPLOYER WITH THE UNION CONNVENERS OF POREDAM IN CHADAYAMANGALAM PANCHAYATH. EXT.R5D. TRUE COPY OF AN AGREEMENT DATED 6.10.2009 EXECUTED BY AN EMPLOYER WITH THE UNION CONVENERS FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING OF RUBBER TREES FROM PREDAM IN CHADAYAMANGALAM. EXT.R5E.TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 5.3.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.6794 of 2010-A ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. This writ petition is filed seeking police protection. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:-- Petitioner is a timber merchant. He had purchased 30 cubic feet of trees from the owners of property. It is stated that petitioner had paid Rs.3,60,000/- to the owners of the property as per the agreement and that the trees were cut and stored near Kakkodu bridge in order to transport to a saw mill. Since the woods are huge petitioner availed the service of an elephant to load the wooden logs into lorry. Kakkodu area is not covered by any scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act. There is obstruction by the party respondents, it is submitted. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 5 to 7. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the parties including the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7 would submit that if the petitioner is W.P.C.No.6794/2010 -2- doing loading and unloading work by using an elephant they do not obstruct. He submits that there are headload workers with identity cards in the area and the petitioner cannot do loading and unloading work with his own workers in the area. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is prepared to do the work either with the help of an elephant or with workers having registration belonging to the area, but, the petitioner may not be called upon to pay any amount in excess of the amount fixed under the Act and Rules. 3. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: If the petitioner is doing the loading and unloading work by using an elephant and if there is any obstruction from respondents 5 to 7 there will be an order directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate protection to the petitioner for carrying out the loading and unloading work. In case the petitioner is doing the work manually, then the petitioner can do it only in accordance with law by employing the headload workers having registration. It is made clear that the petitioner need not pay any excess amount than W.P.C.No.6794/2010 -3- what is provided in the Act. If the petitioner has any complaint, it is open for him to bring it to the notice of the 4th respondent who in turn will see that petitioner is not called upon to pay any amount in excess of what he is liable to pay. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS