IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22584 of 2008(L)
1. EARSHAD A.M., PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
2. CHANDRAN, S/O SANKARAN, 14/2,
3. VINOD ,S/O MANI, 410/1, OOTRA P.O.,'
4. MOHANDAS, S/O ARUMUKHAN,151
5. ANEESH, S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, 9/70,
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, 2ND
3. C.I.T.U. (HEAD LOAD SECTION)
4. RAGHAVAN, S/O KANNAN, CHELLIKKAD,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :06/08/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.22584 OF 2008
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The 1st petitioner is running a hollow bricks unit in
Kannadi, Palakkad. The petitioners 2 to 5 are the workmen of
the 1st petitioner. The said petitioners are doing the loading and
unloading work in the 1st petitioner’s establishment, it is
submitted. The unit started production only in March 2008. He
engaged three workmen to do the loading and unloading work
in the establishment. They got registration under the Head
Load Workers Rules also. But, in the 3rd week of July, 2008, the
4th respondent came and threatened those workmen. The first
petitioner was instructed not to engage the workmen from
outside to do the loading work in his establishment. In the face
of the threat from the part of the 4th respondent, the petitioner
submits those workmen resigned and in their place the 1st
petitioner has engaged the petitioners 2 to 5, it is submitted.
W.P.(C) No.22584/2008 2
They have already moved the Labour Officer for grant of
registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers
Rule. The 1st petitioner is doing the loading and unloading work
engaging those workmen. But, respondents 3 and 4 are causing
obstruction. Therefore, the 1st petitioner moved the police for
protection. Since the police did not extend any helping hand,
this writ petition is filed.
3. The respondents 3 and 4 have filed counter affidavit.
According to them, there are nine registered head load workers
in their Union. The 1st petitioner’s workmen have no registration
and therefore, he is bound to engage the local registered head
load workers, it is submitted.
4. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions,
submitted that the applications submitted by the petitioners 2 to
5 for registration before the 2nd respondent will be finally
heard and disposed before 22.8.2008. The police advised the
parties to go by the decision of the Labour Officer, it is
submitted.
W.P.(C) No.22584/2008 3
5. The petitioner being the employer should be normally
conceded freedom to engage workmen of his choice in his
establishment. But, the learned counsel for the respondents 3
and 4 submitted that Kerala Headload Workers Act has made
inroads into that right and the 1st petitioner is bound to engage
the registered workmen of the local area. But, we are not
making any final pronouncement on this contention, as in this
case, we are concerned only in the failure of the duty of the
police. As the police is not supposed to decide the above dispute
we are also not venturing to do that in this jurisdiction. For the
time being, the police shall extend necessary protection to the
petitioners 2 to 5 as they are the workmen engaged by the 1st
petitioner. If any obstruction is caused to them, the police on
being informed of the same by the 1st petitioner, shall remove the
obstruction. But the contentions of the respondents 3 and 4 are
left open. They may move the statutory forum under the Kerala
Head Load Workers Act and establish their right. If there is any
decision in favour of the local registered head load workers, the
W.P.(C) No.22584/2008 4
petitioner will be bound to respect that and the police protection
will continue only subject to that liability of the petitioner.
6. Needless to say, if there is any overflow chances, that
is, if the petitioner requires any additional workmen, he shall
prefer the local registered head load workers.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
ps