IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12482 of 2009(E)
1. BINOJ.K,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. RAMESAN,
3. SIVAN,
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
For Respondent :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :22/05/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 12482 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Raman, J,
Petitioner has started a new establishment by name
Lakshmi Granites and Tiles, which is a proprietorship concern, at
Thuravoor in Alappuzha District. The establishment was started from
1.4.2009. He is having his own permanent headload workers, six in
number. Names of whom were disclosed to the authorities in terms of
Section 26 of the Headload Workers Act. It is also his case that in turn
those employees have also applied for registration with the concerned
authority. As per Section 26 of the Headload Workers Act, any new
establishment could engage its own workmen for loading and
unloading and the only condition being that he should intimate to the
concerned authority about the persons so engaged since he cannot
dispense the service of those employees in accordance with the
provisions contained therein. Alleging obstruction by respondents 2
and 3 and inaction on the part of the police inspite of complaint being
made, petitioner approached this court for appropriate directions to
WPC.12482/2009. 2
respondents 2 and 3. However, respondents 2 and 3 did not contest the
matter. Feeling aggrieved by such circumstances, and apprehending that
any of the legal rights of the additional impleaded respondents may be
affected by any orders that might be passed in this writ petition, respondents
4 to 8 got themselves impleaded. We heard the counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as counsel for impleaded respondents 4 to 8 and also the
learned Government Pleader.
2. It is the case of respondents 4 to 8 that they are not causing
any obstruction to the work of loading and unloading in the establishment
of the petitioner. But their only fear is that under the guise of a police
protection order their work in the other establishments may not be affected.
There is no room for any such apprehension. The protection is to be
afforded to the petitioner it being a new establishment protected under
Section 26 of the Act.
3. Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Circle
Inspector of Police submits that if and when orders are issued, they will
abide by the same.
WPC.12482/2009. 3
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a
direction to the first respondent to give adequate protection to the petitioner
and his permanent workers, six in number, for doing the loading and
unloading operations connected with his establishment unobstructed by
anybody.
P.R. Raman,
Judge
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge
sb.