IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1904 of 2008(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.V. RADHAKRISHNAN, SON OF VELAYUDHAN, MELARKODE, MUDAPPALLUR, ALATHUR, PROPRIETOR, SREE RAM SAW MILL, KANTHAMPETTA, CHITTALANCHERRY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRIR.AZAD BABU SRI.P.R.RAJA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALATHUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALATHUR. 3. INTUC HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION, CHITTALANCHERRY, ALATHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHITTALANCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 1904/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD OF MR.SIVADAS. EXT.P1(a) – TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD OF MR.KRISHNANKUTTY. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE PAMPHLET SHOWING THE HYDRAULIC CRANE PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.889 OF 2004 DT. 23.1.2004. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 14.12.2007. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT. 4.1.2008. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.1043/2004. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF RETAIL INVOICE DATED 18.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE DEALER VELLAPALLY BROS. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.10.2007 OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT FOR REMITTANCE OF RENEWAL FEE UNDER THE FACTORIES ACT ON 28.10.2006. EXT.P9(a) – TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT FOR REMITTANCE OF RENEWAL FEE UNDER THE FACTORIES ACT ON 20.9.2007. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 19.5.2006 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA. EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT. 6.9.07 ISSUED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ALATHUR TO THE DFO, NENMARA. EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SUB BT OFFICE, ALATHUR. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR& P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 1904 OF 2008-B ----------------------------------------- Dated 31st January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is presently the owner of Sree Ram Saw Mill at Chittalancherry in Alathur Taluk. Recently, its name has been changed as Ranjith Saw Mill and Timbers. His predecessor-in-interest was employing four registered head load workers in the Mill. When the members of the 3rd respondent Union staked their claim for doing the loading/unloading work in the Mill, his predecessor-in-interest approached this Court, seeking police protection and the said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment, granting protection as prayed for. However, it was also directed by this Court that if additional workers are required in the Saw Mill, the same should be from the 3rd respondent's Union. 2. The petitioner submits, he has purchased the nearby plot and for lifting timber etc., he has established hydraulic devices. While so, the members of the 3rd respondent Union came there and caused obstruction, Wpc 1904/08 2 claiming that they should be given work. After moving the police, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking assistance to run his unit using his own employees and the mechanized crane. 3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the representations stated to have been filed by the petitioner, were not received by the police. In answer the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said representations were filed before the neighbouring Circle Inspector of Police, who was in charge of the circle office at the relevant time. 4. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, resisting the prayers in the writ petition. It is submitted by the 3rd respondent that the police protection ordered as per Ext.P3 relates to a different unit and the petitioner cannot take advantage of that order. The petitioner has started a new unit in a property at a distance of 75 metres from the existing unit and for doing the loading/unloading work in that new unit, he is seeking protection, which cannot be granted on the strength of Ext.P3, it is submitted. 5. It is common case that the area in question is a scheme covered area. If the petitioner does not have registered workmen, he has to do the work by engaging the workmen of the local pool. If the work is done by Wpc 1904/08 3 the registered head load workers or using mechanized devices and the members of the 3rd respondent are causing obstruction, the petitioner may inform the police. In that event the police shall remove the obstruction. If the services of additional workmen are required, needless to say, the petitioner shall engage them from the local pool of the head load workers. If the members of the 3rd respondent have any claim for doing the work in the newly started unit, which is functioning in the neighbourhood of the existing unit, they will be free to move the statutory authorities under the Head load Workers Act and establish their right. In that event, the direction to grant police protection will be subject to any orders passed by the statutory authorities. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/