IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13237 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M/S. EASTERN CONDIMENTS PVT. LTD., EASTERN VALEEY, ADIMALY, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, M.E. MOHAMMED. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKAD POLICE STATION, MANNARKKAD. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION, MANNARKKAD. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 4. THE SECRETARY, HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION, (CITU), MANNARKKAD. 5. THE SECRETARY, HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION, (INTUC), ALTHARA JUNCTION, MAIN ROAD, MAINNARKKAD. ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED. 9. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PALAKKAD LOCAL COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS CHAIR PERSON. ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.12.5.2009 IN I.A. NO.5717/2009. ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE FOR ADDL.R6 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.C. 13160 & 13238/2009 THE COURT ON 10/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 13237/2009. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.4.2009. P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos. 13160, 13237 & 13238 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhavadasan, J, Since common issues arise for consideration, these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. M/s. Eastern Condiments Pvt. Ltd., petitioner in all these cases, runs business in curry powder. The curry powders are packed in cartons and the cartons are distributed at various places. The articles are taken in the van belonging to the company and they have permanent workers to go along with the goods. The delivery van goes from place to place carrying the goods and accompanied by employees and articles are unloaded wherever it is necessary. According to the petitioner in all these cases, when the business was running smoothly, certain headload workers began to interfere. That causes considerable difficulties to the petitioner and they were WPC. 13160/2009 & con.cases. 2 not able to deliver the goods in time. Complaints preferred before the police authorities had no impact. The concern is marketing the goods to various places and these three petitions are in respect of three areas, where the concern does its business. In the light of the hindrance caused by the various unions, it has become necessary for them to seek police protection for the smooth running of their business. 3. In all these three cases, the party respondents were served by special messenger. None of them appeared. The Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board later impleaded as additional 9th respondent has objected to the claim made by the petitioner. 4. This court had granted interim order in W.P.(C) 13233 of 2009 and W.P.(C) 13238 of 2009 on 21.5.2009 and in W.P.(C) 13160 of 2009 on 26.5.2009. The police officers concerned in each case were directed to see that no obstructions are caused for the loading and unloading of the goods by engaging the WPC. 13160/2009 & con.cases. 3 registered workers concerned and any obstruction, if caused, shall be removed. 5. As already stated, none of the contesting respondents have actually filed any objection. The objection raised by the 9th respondent is that if the prayers made in the petitions are allowed, that would be defeating the provisions of the Headload Workers Act, 1978. The contention taken is that the registered workers of the company can carry on loading and unloading work within the precinct of the establishment and not beyond that. 6. It is unnecessary to go deep into the matter because an identical issue has already been decided by this court and the same is reported in Cresent Trading Company v. Sub Inspector of Police (2009 (3) K.L.T. 16). In the said decision the various provisions urged before court were looked into and interpreting the words “in the establishment or for the establishment”, this court held that in such cases as the one prayed for by the petitioner, they are entitled to protection. Paragraph 8 of the decision reads as WPC. 13160/2009 & con.cases. 4 follows: “Even though “establishment” as defined my be a definite place where the business activities is being carried on, the definition of the term 'headload worker' shows that the work is not confined within the establishment. As per S.2(m) of the Act, 'headload worker' is a person either employed or engaged directly or through a contractor, and such engagement could be “in the establishment or for the establishment”. When the legislature has used the expression “in the establishment or for the establishment” it takes in loading and unloading work both within the establishment and outside, but in the later case, the work must be connected with the establishment. When it is said that headload worker is a person directly employed or through the contractor in the establishment or for the establishment, there cannot be any doubt that in order to become a headload worker, he need not necessarily be a person whose activities connected with loading and unloading is confined to any particular premises, rather he can also be a person who my work for an establishment which necessarily means outside WPC. 13160/2009 & con.cases. 5 the establishment as well. If the contention of the respondents is accepted, in so far as persons who are not attached with an establishment will fall outside the definition to the term headload worker. As a matter of fact, the word”employer” as defined under S.2(i) of the Act, would show that in case of a headload worker who engaged by or through a contractor, the employer is the principal employer, ad in the case of a headload worker who is not employed or engaged by any employer or contractor, the employer is th Committee appointed under S.18 and as per the explanation, a headload worker is a person registered as headload worker under the Scheme, and whose wages are paid by the employer or contractor through the Committee concerned. As per cl.2(i)(iii), in relation to any other headload worker, the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment in or for which the headload worker is employed and includes any other person to whom the affairs of such establishment are entrusted, whether such person is called an agent, manager or by any other name prevailing in such establishment. Thus, the legislature, all through uses the expression 'in' the establishment as also 'for' the establishment, thereby WPC. 13160/2009 & con.cases. 6 leaving no room to doubt that the loading and unloading work involved may be even outside any definite premises and that the work may either be within the precincts of the establishment. So however in the latter case, work should be connected with the establishment. If it is to be understood in the manner as contended by the third respondent, then a person who has no definite premises to work will fall outside the definition of the term 'worker'. The third respondent who has no permanent establishment under whom he works will not come within the definition of the term 'headload worker'. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention as raised by the third respondent.” 7. The principle laid down in the above decision applies to the present cases. There is no difference either on facts or regarding the law applicable. In the circumstances, the interim orders passed by this court on various dates are made absolute. In case any obstruction is caused by the party respondents in each of the cases, the police officials concerned shall see that necessary protection is given to WPC. 13160/2009 & con.cases. 7 them to carry on their business. Needless to say that the contesting respondents cannot cause any obstruction not only within the establishment, but also outside the establishment. The writ petitions are allowed as above. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.