IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16084 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, MACHINGAPALLATH HOUSE, MUPLIYAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. RAJEEVAN, S/O.NARAYANAN MASTER, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NANDIPULAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. MANILAL, S/O.NARAYANAN, ELANTHOLI HOUSE, MUPLIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. PIN-680 003. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN-680 301. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARANDARAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN-680 303. 4. HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION (INTUC), INCHAKUNDU UNIT, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-680 312. 5. HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION (CITU), INCHAKUNDU UNIT, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-680 312. W.P.(C). NO.16084/2011-I: 6. HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION (BMS), INCHAKUNDU UNIT, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-680 312. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA, R4 & R6 BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SRI.MANU GOVIND, R5 BY ADVS. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN, SRI.NIREESH MATHEW, SRI.RANJITH JACOB KOSHY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16084/2011-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DTD. 02/04/2011 ISSUED BY MUPLIYAM VILLAGE. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THRISSUR DTD. 25/04/2011. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE VARANDARAPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT DTD. 25/04/2011. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DTD. 18/01/2011. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LE 3 LICENSE ISSUED UNDER THE EXPLOSIVES RULES 2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 10/06/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LICENSE DTD. 01/03/2011 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF C.N. RAJEEVAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, POWERFUL ROCKS INCHAKUNDU. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DTD. 22/12/2010 ISSUED TO POWERFUL ROCKS INCHAKUNDU. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE EXCAVATOR EMPLOYED IN THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY STANDING IN THE NAME OF P.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ALONG WITH RECEIPT DTD. 30/05/2011 PREFERRED BEFORE THE VARANDARAPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 30/05/2011 PREFERRED BEFORE THE VARANDHARAPPILLY VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED ON 16/02/07 INVITING CO-OPERATION AND OFFERING WORK ISSUED BY THE THEN MANAGING PARTNER OF THE FIRM. EXT.R5.B: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS EXPRESSING THEIR GRATITUDE AND SEEKING CONTINUED CO-OPERATION, DTD. 27/01/2011. EXT.R5.C: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/04/2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.R5.D: COPIES OF SOME OF THE WAGE BILLS ISSUED IN THIS REGARD TO THE WORKERS BY THE PETITIONER'S MANAGER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- WP(C) No.16084 of 2011-T -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this, the 6th day of July 2011 Judgment Bhavadasan, J. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : i. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective protection for the conduct of quarrying of the petitioners in Ext.P1 property in the event of any obstruction from respondents 4 to 6 unions. ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to afford adequate police protection to the life of the petitioners in the event of any threat from respondents 4 onwards.” 2. The petitioners claim to run a quarry with necessary statutory licence and permits. They submit that the granite stones obtained by quarrying are being taken and loaded in the lorries by using Hitachi machines and so, there is no manual loading and unloading work to be carried out in the quarry. The grievance of the petitioner is WP(C) 16084/11 2 that respondents 4, 5 and 6 headload workers' unions are demanding 'nokkukooli' from the petitioners even if they are not engaged for the loading and unloading work in their quarry. It is submitted that on certain occasions, due to the threat and coercion from such workers, the petitioners were compelled to pay amounts to members of the above said unions. The members of the unions are demanding huge amounts as 'nokkukooli' and are obstructing the quarrying works in the petitioners' unit. Hence the writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs. 3. The 5th respondent union has filed a counter affidavit, pointing out that the averment in the writ petition that the loading and unloading works in the quarry conducted by the petitioners are being done using mechanical devices, is incorrect. According to the said respondent, from 2007 onwards, the members of respondents 4 to 6 unions are being engaged by the petitioners for doing the loading and unloading works in their quarry. WP(C) 16084/11 3 4. The fourth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit on similar lines. 5. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit, reiterating the averments in the writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the area is not a scheme covered area. The claim of respondents 4 to 6 cannot be countenanced in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police (1998(2) KLT 732), wherein it is held as follows : “19. What will be the consequence, if a headload worker does not get registered under R.26A ? If he is not a permanent employee attached to an establishment and if he is working in an area where the Scheme is made applicable, he will not be entitled to get registered under the Scheme without first getting registered under R.26A. Without a registration under the Scheme, he will not be able to work in that area. It is true that the permanent headload worker need not get registered under the Scheme as contemplated by clause 6A. But, in view of the provisions contained under clause 6(1), he will not be allowed or required to work in any area to which the Scheme applies from the date of commencement of the functional operation of the Scheme in that area unless he is a registered headload worker under the provisions WP(C) 16084/11 4 of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. The provisions of sub-clause (1) of clause 6 are of general application to all headload workers unlike sub-clause (2) requiring a further registration of headload workers excluding headload workers who are permanently employed. 20. If in an area where the Scheme is made applicable, the employer requires services of headload workers other than those whom he had permanently employed, he has necessarily to get them allotted through the committee. But, in an area where the Scheme is not made applicable and therefore, there is no committee, we find no provision under the Act and the Rules which would compel the employer to engage a headload worker who has got registration under R.26A. Therefore, it has to be taken that he is entitled to engage workers of his own choice. It is true that even in such cases, the provisions contained under C.III of the Act regarding hours and limitations of employment and wages would be applicable, since those provisions are not limited to registered headload workers, but are applicable to all headload workers. All sides agreed before us and correctly too, that the provisions of the Act will have no application in respect of a worker engaged by an individual for loading and unloading for domestic purposes.” 7. In the light of the above authoritative pronouncement by the Full Bench of this Court, it has to be WP(C) 16084/11 5 said that the petitioners are not bound to engage the members of respondents 4 to 6 unions for the loading and unloading work. What is significant is that the documents produced by the respondents are in respect of another concern in which the present petitioners are also partners. The petitioners have clearly averred in the petition as well as in the reply affidavit filed by them that they are not using manual labour for doing the loading and unloading work in the quarry in question and it is being done by using machines. At any rate, it is not a scheme covered area. Therefore, the respondents 4 to 6 cannot insist that their members should be engaged in the loading and unloading works in the petitioners' quarry. We are, therefore, convinced that the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought for in the writ Petition. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. In case there is any obstruction by the members of respondents 4 to 6 to the quarrying works in the petitioners' unit, the petitioners may inform the third respondent and in that event, the said respondent shall WP(C) 16084/11 6 render adequate and sufficient protection for the conduct of the quarry. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WP(C) 16084/11 7