IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 14999 of 2011(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- THANKARAJAN ASHARI, S/O.NARAYANAN ASHARI, AGED 63 YEARS, ARUNIMA WOOD CRAFTS, ANAD P.O., ANAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION - 695 541. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION - 695 541. 3. C.I.T.U., ANAD UNIT (NAGACHERY), REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, MOHANAN,KALLADAKUNNU, ANAD P.O., NEDUMANGAD - 695 54. 4. I.N.T.U.C.,ANAD UNIT(NAGACHERY),REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,BHUVANACHANDRAN,ANAD.PO,EDUMANGAD-695 544 * ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED 5. HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO.8809/2011 DATED 17/06/2011. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR R5 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE.SC.KHLWW BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 14999/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE ANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT. P2: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.14999 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to him to himself unload materials brought to his premises against any obstruction by respondents 3 and 4. Respondent No.5 is the Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board impleaded subsequently as directed by this Court. 2. The petitioner's stand is very clear. Articles are brought to his establishment. They have to be unloaded. He will not engage any worker for such loading and unloading. He will do the work himself. No one has the right to object to such work being undertaken by the petitioner himself. Respondents 3 and 4 have absolutely no right to demand such work. Moreover, the area is not a scheme covered area also. In these circumstances appropriate directions may be issued, it is prayed. W.P.(C).NO.14999 OF 2011 : 2 : 3. The learned standing counsel for the 5th respondent submits that where an employer himself wants to attend loading and unloading work in his establishment without employing any person, then, whether the area is scheme covered or not, no other person has the right to demand such work. Therefore, if the petitioner is certain that he will get the work of loading and unloading done by himself without employing any other person, he can certainly be permitted to do so and obstruction to such attempt of the petitioner may be deter by appropriate direction to the police. The only question is whether it would be possible for the petitioner to undertake such work, submits the learned standing counsel. 4. Respondents 3 and 4 submit that they have no objection and shall not cause any obstruction, if the work is done by the petitioner himself. Of course, it was submitted in the course of arguments that where customers bring articles to the petitioner's premises, respondents 3 and 4 would be entitled to demand such work of unloading from such customers. 5. According to the petitioner, whether articles are brought to his premises by himself or customers or others, W.P.(C).NO.14999 OF 2011 : 3 : respondents 3 and 4 cannot raise any objection so long as the petitioner himself does such work. He wants an order of police protection specifically limited to himself doing the work. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that the petitioner's prayer can be accepted and appropriate directions can be issued to the police. 7. In the result: a. This petition is allowed. b. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to get the work of loading and unloading in his establishment done by the petitioner himself personally against any obstruction that may be raised by respondents 3 and 4. 3. We make it clear that the petitioner has accepted that such work of unloading shall be done personally by the petitioner and he shall not engage any other to perform such work. Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. cl