IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20805 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SASANKAN, S/O. LAKSHMANAN, AMBADI, SHARKKARA, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL, SRI.T.PRASAD. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA RURAL, KOTTARAKKARA.P.O., KOLLAM – 691 506. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, CHADAYAMANGALAM.P.O., KOLLAM – 691 507. 3. SRI. SAINUDHEEN, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, SECRETARY, I.N.T.U.C., NILAMEL UNIT, I.N.T.U.C. OFFICE, NILAMEL.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 506. 4. SRI. CHITHRASENAN, C.I.T.U NILAMEL UNIT, C.I.T.U OFFICE, NILAMEL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C). NO.20805/2011-A: *ADDITIONAL R5. IMPLEADED: 5. THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, KOLLAM. *IMPLEADED SUOMOTU AS ADDL. R5 AS PER ORDER DATED 09/08/11 IN W.P.(C). R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS R4 BY ADVS. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR, SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM, SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN, SRI.A.SANIL KUMAR ADDL. R5. BY SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20805/2011-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 30/01/2010 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND SRI. ABDUL WAHEED. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND POSTAL RECEIPT DTD. 21/07/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 26/07/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE UNION. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE CONVENER D. BAIJU AND AYOOB. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO SRI. VISWAMBHARAN FOR CARRYING OUT THE LOADING AND UNLOADING WORKS, IN THE NILAMEL TOWN AND SURROUNDING AREAS. EXT.R4.D: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO SRI. SUGUNAN, FOR CARRYING OUT THE LOADING AND UNLOADING WORKS, IN THE NILAMEL TOWN AND SURROUNDING AREAS. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20805 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and to his workers engaged for slaughter tapping, loading, unloading and transporting of Rubber trees standing in the property belonging to him, situated at Nilamel village. As per Ext.P1 he had entered into an agreement with one Sri.Abdul Waheed for cutting and removal of the Rubber trees, for the purpose of replanting the property. Allegation is that respondents 3 and 4 who are office bearers of a trade union functioning in the sector of head load workers in the area is causing obstruction in doing the cutting and removal of the Rubber trees and its loading. It is alleged that the members of respondents 3 and 4 are causing physical obstruction and 2 W.P.(C) No.20805 of 2011 also threatening attack against the petitioner and against workers engaged by him. Contention of the petitioner is that, respondents 3 and 4 or anybody claiming under them have no manner of right to create any obstruction to the work being done by engaging persons of the petitioner's choice. Eventhough the petitioner had submitted Exts.P2 and Ext.P3 complaints before the 2nd respondent, no effective steps were taken. Hence this writ petition is filed. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent it is contended that, the members of the 4th respondent union are registered Headload workers in the area in question. It is stated that they are the workers doing similar nature of work in the area and they have entered into agreements with other parties for doing such works. It is also contended that since the scheme formulated under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act has been notified in the area in question, the members of respondents 3 and 4 alone has got right to do the work of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the 3 W.P.(C) No.20805 of 2011 allegation stating that the work in question will not come within the purview of the 'head load work' as defined under the Act and the scheme, and also contending that the functional operation of the scheme has not been implemented in the area in question. In view of the controversy we have directed to implead the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board, Kollam as the additional 5th respondent. Learned standing counsel appearing for the additional 5th respondent conceded that the operation of the scheme formulated under the Act has not been implemented with respect to the area in question. 4. Considering the factual situation prevailing and the rival contentions raised, we find that the work in question is mainly cutting, sizing and stocking of rubber trees. Probably, the loading of sized timber logs may come within the purview of the head load work as contemplated under the Act and the Rules. However, since it is submitted that the functional operation of the scheme has not been implemented in the area in question, the petitioner is entitled to do the work with the workers of his own choice, 4 W.P.(C) No.20805 of 2011 eventhough they are not registered under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The above legal position is settled through a recent decision of this Court in Nujumudeen Vs. Police Commissioner, Kollam and others (2011(3) KHC page-96). Therefore, we find that respondents 3 and 4 or anybody claiming under them have got no manner of right to create any physical obstruction in executing the work by engaging workers of the petitioner's choice. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to take effective steps, if any physical obstruction is caused and to afford adequate police protection for executing the work by employing persons of the petitioner's choice. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/