IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17629 of 2009(W)
1. K.P.MAHESH KUMAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
5. THE KERALA CHUMATTUTHOZHILALI CONGRESS,
6. HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION,
7. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CHUMATTU
8. HEADLOAD AND GENERAL MAZDOOR SANGH,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SMT.S.MUMTAZ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :01/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 17629 OF 2009
-------------------------------
Dated this the 1st July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Raman, J.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a
direction to respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and
necessary protection to the petitioner and his employees to
carry out the loading and unloading work in the depot of
Parenteral Drugs (I) Limited at Thiruvallam,
Thiruvananthapuram, without any obstruction from respondents
5 to 8 and their supporters.
2. According to the petitioner, he is running a
depot of pharmaceutical company. He has three registered
employees for carrying out the loading and unloading work. On
an earlier occasion, the Manager has filed a writ petition before
this Court seeking protection, when there was obstruction caused
by respondents 3 to 6 therein, and this Court by Ext.P1 judgment
W.P.(C) No.17629 of 2009
2
made it clear that if the petitioner is engaging persons holding
identity cards, unless and until the same are cancelled by any
statutory authority, the petitioner therein is entitled to employ
such registered workers. It is also directed that so long as the
work of loading and unloading is carried on by the registered
workers, there cannot be any obstruction, at the instance of
respondents 3 to 6. In case of any obstruction, there was a
direction to the police to give necessary protection.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that two of the
registered workmen engaged by him had already left the service
and now two persons have joined in their place. It is also stated
that applications for registration has also been made as
contemplated under Rule 26A of the Rules for loading and
unloading work.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we
find that this is not a scheme covered area. Petitioner is running
a pharmaceutical company and necessarily materials brought
has to be unloaded which is incidental to the work of the
W.P.(C) No.17629 of 2009
3
establishment. So long as the petitioner is engaging the
registered workmen including the two newly joined workmen, in
respect of them applications had been submitted for registration,
there will not be any obstruction caused by respondents 5 to 8
and their supporters. However, it is open to the party
respondents, if they are otherwise aggrieved, to approach the
authority before whom the applications for registration are
pending, and the authority will take a decision in the matter
within two weeks. In case, registration in respect of two
workmen is not granted, then the petitioner will not be entitled to
continue such workmen, until that decision is reversed by any
competent court. In the meantime, if there is any obstruction
from party respondents, police shall give necessary protection.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE.
nj.