IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 37990 of 2007(V)
1. A.K. CHEMICALS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
4. UNIT SECRETARY,
5. UNIT SECRETARY/CONVENOR,
6. UNIT SECRETARY/CONVENOR,
7. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PARAVOOR.
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.HASSAN
For Respondent :SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :10/03/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ.
=======================
W.P.(C)NO. 37990 of 2007
========================
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF MARCH 2008
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair,J.
The petitioner is running a small scale industrial unit
processing sulphur into various other products. It started
production in February 2007. Sulphur is brought to the factory
premises, which is unloaded by the petitioner’s own workers, it is
submitted. The finished products are loaded into vehicles by
them only. While so on 3-12-2007, the local head load workers
under the leadership of respondents 4 to 6 entered the factory
premises and caused obstruction. So seeking police assistance,
Ext.P7 representation was filed before the police. Ext.P8 is the
receipt issued for the same. There is a discrepancy in the date
mentioned in Ext.P8. So far the police have not rendered
protection and therefore the petitioner could not do the
loading/unloading work in his establishment.
WPC.37990/2007 -2-
2. Respondents 4 to 6 have filed a counter affidavit stating
that the unit stopped functioning in 1999 after a fire broke out
and all the machineries were destroyed. The petitioner has
started to do the necessary maintenance and other erection
work of the unit in November 2007. The workmen denied that
there is any obstruction from their part and they submit that
loading/unloading work has not started so far. Since there was
some dispute between the parties as to whether the unit is
functioning or not, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by
this Court. The learned Commissioner has filed a report stating
that on the date of visit the unit was not functioning. But the
petitioner has got all the necessary statutory clearances, licences
etc. for running the unit.
3. The learned Government Pleader upon instruction
submitted that upon receipt of the complaint, enquiry was
conducted and the contents of the complaint were not correct.
There is no law and order problem in the area warranting
protection.
WPC.37990/2007 -3-
4. It is common case that it is a scheme covered area. If
the petitioner wants to engage his permanent workers to do the
loading/unloading work in his establishment, they should have
registration under Rules 26 A of the Kerala Headload Workers
Rules. In the absence of registered headload workers, the
petitioner has to engage the local workers of the pool to do the
loading/unloading work in his establishment. In view of the above
position as things stand now, the petitioner cannot be granted
protection for doing the loading/unloading work in his
establishment.
In the result, the petition fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.N. RAVINDRAN , JUDGE
ks.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,J.
===================
CRL.A.NO. OF 200
JUDGMENT
DATE: ……2006
=====================