IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 34948 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ HAMANULLAH A., PROPRIETOR, ROSHAN WOOD INDUSTRIES, MOONNUMUKKU, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.S.A.RAZZAK RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL. 2. MR. SURENDRAN, CONVENER, INTUC, MOONNUMUKKU, ATTINGAL. 3. MR. CHANDRAN, CONVENER, AITUC, MOONNUMUKKU, ATTINGAL. ADDL. RESPONDENTS: 4. CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, DISTRICT COMMITTEE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R4 AS PER ORDER DT. 14.1.08 IN IA 631/08) 5. ASST. LABOUR OFFICER, ATTINGAL. IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R5 BY ORDER DT. 20.2.08 IN IA 2497/08) BY ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY,SC,KHLWWB GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 34948/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - PHOTO COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.12.96 FOR LICENCE UNDER KM ACT. EXT.P2 - PHOTO COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.7.98, SSI REGISTRATION. EXT.P3 - PHOTO COPY OF LICENCE UNDER SHOPS ACT. EXT.P4 - PHOTO COPY OF THE PETITIONER' S REPRESENTATION DATED 24.10.07 SUBMITTED BEFORE R1. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 34948 OF 2007-I ----------------------------------------- Dated 4th March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is running a saw mill and wood workshop at Attingal. His establishment is enclosed by walls on all sides. He has got two regular head load workers to do the loading/unloading work in his establishment. While so, the respondents 2 and 3 staked their claim for doing the loading/unloading work in the petitioner's establishment. Feeling aggrieved by their stand and apprehending obstruction to the loading/unloading work, he filed Ext.P4 representation before the 1st respondent, seeking police protection. The petitioner submits, the respondents 2 and 3 and their followers, who are head load workers of the area, are causing obstruction to the loading/unloading work in his establishment. Though moved, the police did not extend any help. So, this writ petition is filed, seeking appropriate direction to the police, to enable the petitioner to engage his own workmen in his business premises for doing the loading/unloading work. WPC 34948/2007 2 2. The additional 4th respondent has got himself impleaded in this writ petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the impleading application, the said respondent has submitted that it is a scheme covered area and the head load workers of the local pool have to be engaged for doing the loading/unloading work. The petitioner's workmen do not have any registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules and therefore, they cannot be engaged for doing the loading/unloading work. 3. The petitioner submitted that his two regular workmen, who are doing the loading/unloading work in his establishment have filed applications before the Assistant Labour Officer on 2.2.2008, seeking registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. The said officer has not, so far, disposed of their applications. 4. The area in question is admittedly a scheme covered area. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions of the scheme under the Headload Workers Act, the head load workers registered under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules alone can be engaged by the employers as their regular workmen for doing the loading/unloading work. If the employers do not have such workmen, they will have to do the loading/unloading work, by engaging the workmen attached to the local pool under the additional 4th respondent. The pendency of the applications of the workmen will not WPC 34948/2007 3 improve the case of the petitioner. Even assuming there is delay from the part of the Assistant Labour Officer concerned to process and dispose of the applications of the workmen of the petitioner, the same will not make any difference. In the absence of registered workmen under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, the claim of the petitioner for police protection to do the loading/unloading work in his establishment using his own workmen cannot be granted. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/