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 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20963 of 2011(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- R.S. PRADEEP S/O.V. RAMACHANDRAN, SUMA NIVAS, KAVANADU P.O., MEENATHU CHERRY, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN, SRI.C.K.PRASAD, SRI.T.S.ANURAJ, SRI.B.BALA PRASANNAN. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER KOLLAM-1 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691 581. 3. MOHANAN M.K, S/O.M.K. KUTTY ANEESH NIVAS, GANGA NAGAR - 100 NEAR KOCHUNADA, KURUREEPUZHA CHERRY, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM-3. 4. ABHILASH. C @ RAJEEVAN, S/O.CHANDRAN, THUNDIL VEEDU, SAKTHIKULANGARA CHERRY, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM-3. 5. SHARATHLAL S/O.SHASIDHARAN, KUNNIKKOTTU VEEDU, SAKTHIKULANGARA CHERRY, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM-3. 6. MANEKSHA, S/O.DAMODARAN, MANIYATHUPADINJATTATHIL, KAVANADU NAGAR-196, MEENATHU CHERRY, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM-3. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M. CHARISMA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 20963 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20963 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The petitioner is the proprietor of a sanitary shop run under the name and style 'R.S.Sanitary & Paints'. Respondents 3 to 6 are the registered head load workers doing loading-unloading works in the area in question, wherein the petitioner's godown is situated which is about 1 Km. away from the shop. The petitioner has got his own workers for doing the loading and unloading works. Since the sanitary goods sold by the petitioner are delicate items which need be handled by trained and skilled persons, hitherto the petitioner was doing such works by employing workers of his own. Grievance of the petitioner is that, on 24.7.2011, the unloading works at the petitioner's godown was obstructed by respondents 3 to 6 and they have shown vandalism by creating physical obstruction and threat to 2 W.P.(C) No.20963 of 2011 the life of the petitioner and his workers. Even, plying of vehicles to the company godown was obstructed by the respondents. Eventhough the petitioner complained about such actions before the 1st respondent through Ext.P1, no effective steps were taken. Hence this writ petition is filed. 2. Inspite of service of notice from this Court, nobody enters appearance for respondents 3 to 6, nor they have chosen to contest the matter. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of instructions received from respondents 1 and 2, submitted that on enquiry it was revealed that the respondents are raising claims for work in the petitioner's godown, which basically is in the nature of a labour dispute. It is submitted that the police have advised the parties to resort to appropriate remedy before competent labour authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the workers engaged by the petitioner are the permanent workers attached to the establishment and they have already applied for registration, under Rule 26 A of the 3 W.P.(C) No.20963 of 2011 Head Load Workers Rules. It is submitted that the petitioner has got every right to do the work by engaging the permanent workers. The contentions in this regard remain untraversed. It is always left open to the party respondents to approach the competent authority under the Labour Department, if they have got any claim with respect to the loading and unloading works in the petitioner's godown. As things stands now, we are of the opinion that respondents 3 to 6 shall not be permitted to create any physical obstructions to the loading and unloading works in the petitioner's godown. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to avert the physical obstructions if any caused to the loading and unloading works of the petitioner, being done by engaging his own permanent workers. If there is any threat to the lives of the petitioner or to his workers, the 2nd respondent should take necessary steps to afford protection. 5. Needless to say that the above direction will not 4 W.P.(C) No.20963 of 2011 stand in the way of respondents 3 to 6 in approaching the labour authorities concerned and in such authorities taking decision in accordance with law. The protection granted herein will be also subject to the ultimate decision to be taken by the competent authority on the application of the petitioner's workers for registration under Rule 26 A. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/