IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3989 of 2010(W)
1. C.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN,
3. INTUC, THRISSUR DISTRICT COMMITTEE,
4. BMS, THRISSUR DISTRICT COMMITTEE,
5. CITU, THRISSUR DISTRICT COMMITTEE,
6. AITUC, THRISSUR DISTRICT COMMITTEE,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR)
For Respondent :SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :10/03/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P(C). NO. 3989 OF 2010 W
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th March, 2010
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
The Chairman, Headload Workers’ Welfare Fund Board,
Thrissur is suo motu impleaded as the additional seventh
respondent and the Assistant Labour Officer, Kodungalloor as
additional eighth respondent and the learned Government
Pleader appears for the additional eighth respondent.
2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to issue a writ of
mandamus directing the first respondent to afford sufficient and
meaningful protection to the petitioner and his workers for
doing all the loading and unloading works connected with his
business throughout the Thrissur District without any threat or
any sort of obstruction from the workers belonging to the
various units of respondent Unions 3 to 6.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
Petitioner is the proprietor of a Distribution Firm engaged
WPC.3989/2010 W 2
in distribution of napkins, soaps, powder, earbuds, shampoo etc.
of M/s. Johnson & Johnson, Reckitt Benkicer in Thrissur
District. Petitioner himself and his salesmen and drivers of the
distribution van are carrying on the loading and unloading
works connected with the distribution of the said items to retail
shops throughout Thrissur District. They have been doing it for
the last twenty years without any obstruction from workers
belonging to the Unions 3 to 6. There is obstruction alleged on
13.01.2010. Petitioner files Ext.P1 complaint to the first
respondent and Ext.P2 before the second respondent.
4. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
Learned counsel for the additional seventh respondent submits
that there is no authority with the second respondent and the
petitioner may have to approach the additional seventh
respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner will approach the additional seventh
respondent representing his grievance. Learned counsel for the
fifth respondent would submit as long as the loading and
WPC.3989/2010 W 3
unloading work is done in light covered delivery vehicles, they
will not obstruct. We record the submission and dispose of the
Writ Petition as follows:
In case there is any obstruction from respondents 3 to 6 to
the loading and unloading work in respect of goods carried by
the petitioner in light covered delivery vehicles, the first
respondent will afford protection to the petitioner as against
them. It is open to the petitioner to represent the matter before
the additional eighth respondent regarding his grievance. The
additional eighth respondent will look into the matter under
Section 21 of the Act. The present arrangement will be subject
to the decision as may be taken by the statutory authorities.
Petitioner will produce a copy of this Judgment before the
additional eighth respondent.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
WPC.3989/2010 W 4