IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33378 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S JOHN POLYMERS, MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MUTHALAMADA, PALAKAD - 678 507, REP. BY ITSMANAGING PARTNER MR. CHANDY KURIAN. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN RESPONDENTS: 1 ---------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,PALAKKAD. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLENGODE. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE, POLICE STATION, KOLLENGODE. 4. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES, OFFICE AT PALKKAD. 5. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD. 6. K.DIVAKARAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, PALLASANA P.O., PALAKKAD. 7. RAMKUMAR M.P., S/O.DIVAKARAN, SREESALLAM, NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM. 8. SANAL P. MAMMAN,S/O. MAMMAN P.V., PATTASSERIL HOUSE, KORATTY SOUTH P.O, THRISSUR. 9. A.NOORUDDIN, S/O. ABDUL MUTHALIF, ATTAYAMPATHY, GOVINDAPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD. 10. K.ALAVUDHEEN, S/O. KHADERPPA RAWTHER ATTAYAMPATHY, GOVINDAPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD. 11. C.ANPURAJ, S/O. CHINNAN, MEENKARA, GOVINDAPURAM P.O, PALAKKAD. 12. KAJA HUSSAIN, S/O. SHOUKATHALI, ATTAYAMPATHY, GOVINDAPURAM P.O,PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) FOR R9 TO 12 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R9 TO 12 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R9 TO 12 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R9 TO 12 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY FO THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL GRADE GRAMA PANCHAYATH MUDALAMADA VIDE REF.NO. A31/14/2008 DT. 9-6-2005. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CKNOWLEDGEMENT EXT.P3: TRUE COPY FO THE RECEIPT NO.70992(95) ISSUED BY SECRETARY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUTHAL;AMADA TO THE PETITIONER DT. 31-5-2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. -DO- - - DO -- EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.11 IDENTITY CARDS RECOGNIZED BY THE A.L.O. NEMMARA UNDER RULE 26(A) OF THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES. EXT.P6: TRUE COPYU OF THAT IMPUGNED ORDER EXT.P7: TRUE COPY FO the CIATION REPORTED IN 1998(2) K.L.T. 732 (FB) EXT.P8: TRUE COPY FO THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE PETITIONER EBFORE THE 2ND RESONODENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R9(A): TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 9TH RESOPNDENT DATED NIL. EXT.R9(B) TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 10TH RESONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.R9(C) TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISUED TO THE 11TH RESOPNDENT D ATED NIL. EXT.R9(D) TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 12TH RESOPNDENT DATED NIL EXT.R9(E) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 13965/2008 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 2-5-2008. ks. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 33378 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner is running an industrial unit manufacturing pet bottles. It has got all the requisite licences from the statutory authorities including the Grama Panchayath to run the unit. The loading of finished products and unloading of raw materials in the factory are being done by the petitioner's workmen. Those workmen obtained registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Act as evident from Ext.P5 series identity cards. But the local headload workers challenged the grant of identity cards to its workmen by filing an appeal before the District Labour Officer. The District Labour officer by Ext.P6 set aside Ext.P5 identity cards and remitted the matter to the Assistant Labour Officer for fresh consideration of the application of the petitioner's workmen. The petitioner submits, it has WPC.33378/2008 -2- challenged that decision of the D.L.O.before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.33067/2008 and the same is pending. After Ext.P6, the local headload workers have come forward demanding that the loading/unloading work in the petitioner's establishment should be given to them. They are using threat and violence to enforce their claim. So, the petitioner moved Ext.P8 representation before the police seeking necessary protection, so that its own workers could continue to do the loading/unloading work in its establishment. Alleging that the police did not take any effective action, this writ petition is filed. 2. Respondents 9 to 12 have filed a counter affidavit stating that in view of Ext.P6, the registered headload workers in the local pool are entitled to do the loading/unloading work in the petitioner's establishment. It is a scheme covered area and therefore, by virtue of paragraph 6 of the Scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, no headload worker, who is not a registered headload worker, shall be allowed to work in that area. So, the claim of the petitioner to employ its own workmen is unsustainable, it is submitted. WPC.33378/2008 -3- 3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that this being a labour dispute and the police did not interfere in the matter. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P7 decision of the Full Bench of this Court and submitted that the petitioner can engage its own workmen in its establishment. The pendency of a dispute between the Management and the workmen will not disable the petitioner to approach this Court for police protection, it is submitted. 5. It is common case that the area in question is covered by the scheme notified under the Kerala Headload Workers Act. In such an area, only registered headload workers can do the loading/unloading work. The attached workmen should have registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. The unattached workmen working in the locality should have not only registration under the above-said Rule but also further registration under the Scheme. In this case, as things stand now, the petitioner's workmen do not have any registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. Therefore, it is not entitled to employ them for doing loading/unloading work as the WPC.33378/2008 -4- area in question is a scheme covered area. So, in the absence of any local registered headload worker, it cannot seek assistance of the police for protection. 6. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. If ultimately the petitioner's workmen get registration, this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner to move the police for necessary assistance for the workmen for doing work in its establishment. Till such time, it may engage the workmen of the local pool. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE ks. WPC.33378/2008 -5-