IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34494 of 2009(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.PRIMA BEVERAGES PVT.LTD., BLOCK NO.35, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, ERUMATHALA P.O., ALUVA -683 105, KERALA, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR, SANJAY GUPTA, AGED 44, S/O S.K.GUPTA. BY ADVS. MR.C.VARGHESE KURIAKOSE, MR.ADEEP ANWAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASST.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL), ALUVA. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, ALUVA. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, ALUVA. 5. THE HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION, CITU, SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM UNIT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. THE HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION, INTUC, SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM UNIT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. THE ASST.LABOUR OFFICER, ALUVA. R1 TO R4 & R7 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA, R5 & R6 BY ADV. MR.C.A.CHACKO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.34494/2009-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SO GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.7. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION GIVEN TO THE R.3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE FOR THE CONSIGNMENT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE FOR THE CONSIGNMENT. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT WAS GIVEN TO THE POLICE. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE INVOICE COPIES. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 34494 of 2009 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Raman, J. Petitioner is a private limited company. The petitioner is engaged in the business of sale of bottled drinking water. According to the petitioner, he was engaging his own permanent workers for all the works connected with the factory, including loading and unloading. Loading and unloading are incidental to the main work. 2. Respondents 5 and 6 and their members, however, asserted that they were denied loading and unloading in the establishment of the petitioner. Being a disputed the question of fact, this Court by an elaborate interim order passed on 23-12-2009 directed the Asst. Labour Officer to verify the registers maintained by the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is engaging his own permanent workers for loading and unloading, the petitioner is entitled W.P.(C) No. 34494/09 2 to get police protection. The Asst. Labour Officer, after due enquiry, filed a report, as per which, it is stated that the Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme has been brought into force in the area where the petitioner’s establishment is situated. The petitioner by Ext.P1 has applied for registration of his permanent workers. Those permanent workers, according to him, were engaged for loading and unloading work. Since the scheme is implemented only very recently and since the application for registration is pending consideration before the 3rd respondent, it is assured by respondents 5 and 6 that they will not cause any physical obstruction to the works of the petitioner’s establishment. However, they plead that they may also be heard by the Asst. Labour Officer before final decision is taken on Ext.P1. 3. Having heard both sides, and having consideration of the submissions made, there will be a direction that so long as the petitioner engaged his own permanent workers for loading and unloading operations, there will not be any W.P.(C) No. 34494/09 3 objection caused by respondents 5 and 6. The Asst. Labour Officer shall take and pass orders on Ext.P1 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and after hearing the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. In case no registration is granted, then the petitioner will not be entitled to protection by virtue of this judgment. In the event of any obstruction being caused, as stated, there will be a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to give necessary protection to the petitioner’s establishment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mn.