IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 12507 of 2011(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- K.K.PRADEEP, EXECUTIVE PARTNER, M/S. BEST ENGINEERING CO., "SUNLAY" BUILFINH 19/1996 A & B ROOMS (NEW NO.37/3257) MADHAVAN NAIR, ROAD, CHALAPURAM, CALICUT-2. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE CITY, KOZHIKODE-673001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASABA POLICE STATION, JAIL ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673004. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASABA POLICE STATION, JAIL RAOD, KOZHIKODE-673004. 4. CHAIRMAN, HEADLOAD WORKERS SELFARE BOARD, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001. 5. SECRETARY, DISTRICT HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION (CITU), ANNIE HALL ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673002. 6. GENERAL SECRETARY, INTUC DISTRICT COMMITTEE, CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001. WP(C).No. 12507 of 2011(K) -2- 7. GENERAL SECRETARY, STU DISTRICT COMMITTEE, STU CENTRE, KOORIYIL LANE, KOZHIKODE-673032. 8. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KOZHIKODE CIRCLE-II, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673020. ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB FOR R-4 SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH FOR R5,7 GOVT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 12507 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.852 DATED 22/04/09 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARDS ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT, UNDER RULE 26A OF THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES, 1981. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 08/07/09 IN W.P.C. NO.19115/09 OF THIS HON. COURT. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.831/09 DATED 03/06/09 ISSUED BY THE ASST. LABOUR OFFICER. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.14/01/11 SUBMITTED TO THE ASST. LABOUR OFFICER. EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.17/02/11 IN W.P.C.4012/11 OF THIS HON. COURT. EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.07/04/11 ADDRESSED TO 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS EXT.R5(a) SERIES:- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE REGISTERED WORKERS OF THE RESPONDENT UNIONS. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.12507 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J The petitioner is the partner of an establishment engaged in trade of machine tools, is approaching this Court on the third occasion. In an earlier Writ Petition, W.P.(C) No.4012/11, this Court granted police protection to the petitioner for carrying out loading - unloading works in his establishment by engaging his own permanent workmen, who is having registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and the Rules made thereunder, as evidenced from Ext.P2 series. This Court also made it clear that the order of police protection will apply to the new premises of the establishment to be housed at “Sunlay” Buildings, 19/1996 A & B, Madhavan Nair Road, Chalapuram, Calicut. W. P. C. No.12507 of 2011 -2- The petitioner is now operating his business from the said address. 2. Grievance voiced in this Writ Petition is that the petitioner had acquired a new godown at “Rajeswari Mill compound” which is situated nearby to his business place. But the respondents 5 to 7 and their members are creating obstructions with respect to loading - unloading works being done at the godown, by engaging the very same workers. In spite of submitting Ext.P7 complaint, the police officials are not providing adequate protection, and hence the Writ Petition is filed. 3. In the counter filed on behalf of respondents 5 and 7, it is contended that, under the guise of Ext.P2 registration, the petitioner is employing workers at different places. According to the said respondents, the Writ Petition is filed on distorted versions. It is contended that the petitioner has no manner of right to employ the registered workers for W. P. C. No.12507 of 2011 -3- doing the loading - unloading works in the newely acquired godown, which is situated at a different area where the scheme formulated under the Headload Workers Act has been implemented. It is contended that 16 permanent workers are working in the area in question and they are having registration under the Headload Workers Rules as well as under the scheme framed. They claim that they are the persons entitled to do the loading - unloading works in the area in question covered under a particular pool by implementation of the functional operation of the scheme. 4. We also heard Standing Counsel Sri.Koshy Gorge appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent. It is submitted that the godown is situated in an area where functional operation of the scheme has been implemented. It is conceded that the workers belonging to respondents 5 and 7 are registered under the scheme. 5. Considering the fact that the two workers having W. P. C. No.12507 of 2011 -4- registration under Rule 26A is attached to the establishment of the petitioner, we hold that those workers are entitled to do the loading-unloading works required for the petitioner's establishment, irrespective of whether such loading - unloading work is at the show room or at the godown of the petitioner. The numbers of respondents 5 to 7 has no manner of right to obstruct such work being done by the workers having registration, attached to the petitioner's establishment. However, we make it clear that if any additional workers is required, the petitioner should engage only workers having registration under the Rule and Scheme, who are included as members of the pool formulated with respect to the relevant area. 6. If respondents 5 to 7 or its members or anybody claiming under them is causing any obstruction to the loading - unloading work of the petitioner being carried out by engaging workers having registration as per Ext.P2, then W. P. C. No.12507 of 2011 -5- the respondents 2 and 3 should take adequate steps to remove such obstruction and to afford protection to the works of the petitioner. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-