IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20629 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ HAJI K.MOHAMMED BASHEER, PROPRIETOR, AL-SAFA GRANITE INDUSTRIES, MUTTAKKAVU, NEDUMPANA.P.O., KOLLLAM DISTRICT 691580. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.ALTHAF RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARTY OF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EZHUKONEL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 121. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 121. 4. R.VENUGOPAL, SRECRETARY, ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS (A.I.T.U.C.), QUARRY WORKERS UNION, OTTUMALA, PIN 691537. 5. P.DILEEPKUMAR, PRESIDENT, CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UINONS (C.I.T.U.), QUARRY WORKERS UNION, OTTUMALA UNIT, PIN 691 537. 6. MADHUSOODANAN PILLAI, AREA TREASUER, BHARATHUYA MASDOOR SANK (B.M.S), QUARRY WORKERS UNION, OTTUMALA UNIT, PIN 691 537. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M.CHARISMA R4 TO R6 BY ADVS. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS, SRI.S.SHAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20629/2011 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 19/05/2011. P2: COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 23/02/2011 BY THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, SOUCH CIRCLE, CHENNAI. P3: COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO OPERATE QUARRY DTD. 30/12/2010. P4: COPY OF THE PANCHAYATH LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE), VELINALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DTD. 25/03/2011. P5: COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED DTD. 29/03/2011 SHOWING THE PURCHASE OF BREAKER MOUNTED HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR. P6: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 25/07/2011. P7: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.25/7/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(A): COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARDS U/R 26A. R4(B): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA DTD. 23/07/2011. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20629 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The petitioner had approached this Court praying for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to render adequate and effective police protection to operate the Granite quarry using 'Hydraulic Excavator' purchased as per Ext.P5 invoice. It is stated that the quarrying operations are conducted on the strength of Ext.P1 quarrying permit, Ext.P2 Explosive licence and Ext.P3 consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board. It is further stated that the petitioner started works using the machinery, on 19.6.2011. It is alleged that respondents 4 to 6 and their men are obstructing usage of the machinery claiming that, they are Head load workers of the area, and the usage of the machinery will result in denial of employment to them. 2 W.P.(C) No.20629 of 2011 Under such circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the 2nd respondent. Since no action is taken, this writ petition is filed. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 6, it is contended that their members are registered workers under Rule 26 A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules and the quarry in question is situated at an area where the scheme formulated under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act is notified in force. It is further contended that, for the last so many years the loading and unloading works in the petitioner's quarry was being done by members of respondents 4 to 6 unions and now the attempt of the petitioner is to engage unregistered labourers from outside the state. It is also mentioned that the respondents have raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Officer as evidenced from Ext.R4(b), on the basis of which a conciliation conference was convened on 29.7.2011, but the petitioner has not participated in such conference. Contention of the respondents is that the 3 W.P.(C) No.20629 of 2011 petitioner is approaching this Court suppressing the real facts and since the members of respondents 4 to 6 unions are registered head load workers, they are entitled to do the loading and unloading works in the petitioner's quarry. 3. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3 it is submitted by learned Government Pleader that, the dispute arose because of the attempt made by the petitioner to use machinery for loading-unloading work and since the dispute is in the nature of a labour issue, the parties were directed to approach the competent authority. 4. The question whether there was any denial of employment to the members of respondents 4 to 6 or any others and as to whether they are entitled to do the loading-unloading works in the petitioner's quarry, are matters which need by decided by the competent labour authorities. Since it is brought to our notice that the respondents submitted Ext.R4(b) before the Assistant Labour Officer and conciliation proceedings has been initiated, we are of the opinion that a direction can be 4 W.P.(C) No.20629 of 2011 issued to that authority to expedite the proceedings. We implead the Assistant Labour Officer, Kottarakkara, Kollam District, suo moto as additional 7th respondent. Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections. The Additional 7th respondent is directed to expedite the conciliation proceedings, if any initiated on the basis of Ext.R4(b). 5. However, we take note of the fact that the respondents 4 to 6 have no manner of right to create any physical obstruction to the work carried out by the petitioner using the machinery. They are not entitled to take law into their own hands and to cause any physical obstruction for such work being done by the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the opinion that respondents 2 and 3 are obliged to take action for removal of such obstruction if any caused and to afford protection to the work of the petitioner being done using the machinery purchased by him. Necessary and effective steps shall be taken by the respondents 2 and 3 in this regard as and when 5 W.P.(C) No.20629 of 2011 information is received with respect to any such obstruction. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/