IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12482 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BINOJ.K, KAMALALAYAM, PARAYAKKAD.P.O, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTHIYATHODE, KUTHIYATHODE.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. RAMESAN, KORASSERIYIL, THURAVOOR SOUTH.P.O, CHERTHALA 3. SIVAN, MOTHAMMAKKAL, THURAVOOR SOUTH.P.O, CHERTHALA. ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8 IMPLEADED. 4. P. ASHOKAN, THANGAPARAMBIL, THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. 5. BINISH C.P., CHOZHIPALLI NIVARTH, THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. 6. SURAJ K.D., KOLLAMPARAMB, THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. 7. SURENDRAN T.K., VISHNU NIVAS, THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. 8. ANIL KUMAR, VADAKKR KOLOTH, THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. ADDL. R4 TO R8 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.4.2009 IN I.A. 5482/2009. ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN FOR ADDL.R SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR) FOR ADDL.R4 TO R8. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 12482/2009. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY OF THE COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KVAT CIRCLE, KUTHIYATHODU DATED 31.3.2009. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 15.4.2009. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 17.4.2009. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S WORKERS (1) KISHORE P.S., BEFORE THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, CHERTHALA DATED 20.4.2009. EXT. P5 : -DO- (2) SRE+EJITH K.S. EXT. P6 : -DO- (3) C.B. BALAKRISHNAN EXT. P7 : -DO- (4) V.B. MADHU EXT. P8 : -DO- (5) V.K. PANKAJAKSHAN EXT. P9 : -DO- (6) P.R. RAMESAN RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT. 41 (SERIES) : TRUE COPIES OF THE RULE 26A (3) CARD ISSUED BY THE A.L.O. CHERTHALA. P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 12482 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, Petitioner has started a new establishment by name Lakshmi Granites and Tiles, which is a proprietorship concern, at Thuravoor in Alappuzha District. The establishment was started from 1.4.2009. He is having his own permanent headload workers, six in number. Names of whom were disclosed to the authorities in terms of Section 26 of the Headload Workers Act. It is also his case that in turn those employees have also applied for registration with the concerned authority. As per Section 26 of the Headload Workers Act, any new establishment could engage its own workmen for loading and unloading and the only condition being that he should intimate to the concerned authority about the persons so engaged since he cannot dispense the service of those employees in accordance with the provisions contained therein. Alleging obstruction by respondents 2 and 3 and inaction on the part of the police inspite of complaint being made, petitioner approached this court for appropriate directions to WPC.12482/2009. 2 respondents 2 and 3. However, respondents 2 and 3 did not contest the matter. Feeling aggrieved by such circumstances, and apprehending that any of the legal rights of the additional impleaded respondents may be affected by any orders that might be passed in this writ petition, respondents 4 to 8 got themselves impleaded. We heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as counsel for impleaded respondents 4 to 8 and also the learned Government Pleader. 2. It is the case of respondents 4 to 8 that they are not causing any obstruction to the work of loading and unloading in the establishment of the petitioner. But their only fear is that under the guise of a police protection order their work in the other establishments may not be affected. There is no room for any such apprehension. The protection is to be afforded to the petitioner it being a new establishment protected under Section 26 of the Act. 3. Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Circle Inspector of Police submits that if and when orders are issued, they will abide by the same. WPC.12482/2009. 3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the first respondent to give adequate protection to the petitioner and his permanent workers, six in number, for doing the loading and unloading operations connected with his establishment unobstructed by anybody. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.