High Court Kerala High Court

K.V.Jose vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 12 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.V.Jose vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 12 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16171 of 2008(A)


1. K.V.JOSE, S/O.VARGHESE, KAITHARAN HOUSE
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SHINEY JOSE, W/O.K.V.JOSE,DO.DO.

                        Vs



1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE
                       ...       Respondent

2. RAVI.K.A., S/O.NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS

3. DILEEP.S.V., S/O.VELAYUTHAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :12/06/2008

 O R D E R
          K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ

           ==============================

                    W.P.(C)NO. 16171 OF 2008

             ============================

             DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2008

                             JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair,J.

The petitioners are husband and wife. They are jointly doing

business in the sale of glass, plywood and other allied products. They

have a godown in Karumalloor Grama Panchayath. The petitioners

submit that they have four workmen for loading/unloading work in

their establishment. The loading/unloading work of glass items is a

specialised job, which can be done only by the petitioners’ own

workmen and they are experienced in this field. But, the respondents

2 and 3, who are representing the registered Headload workers of

the area, have come forward claiming work in the petitioners’

godown. According to them, they are representing the registered

headload workers of the area and they are entitled to do the

loading/unloading work in the petitioners’ establishment. When they

attempted to cause obstruction, the petitioners moved the police.

Since the police did not extend any help, this writ petition is filed

seeking necessary protection to do the loading/unloading work,

WPC.16171/2008 -2-

using the petitioners’ own workmen. They are also seeking protection

for their lives.

2. Respondents 4 and 5 submit that there are 34 registered

headload workers in that area. The petitioners have got work relating

to the loading/unloading of plywood etc., which can be done by any

workmen. They may be engaged to do the loading/unloading work of

those items, it is prayed.

3. It is common case that the area where the godown is

functioning is not covered by the scheme under the Kerala Headload

Workers Act. Therefore, the registered workers cannot claim any

preferential right to do the loading/unloading work. So, the petitioners

will be free to do the loading/unloading work by using their own

workmen. But, if there is any excess work and they require additional

hands, the petitioners may engage the local headload workers at least

for doing the work of loading/unloading of plywood etc. for doing which

no specialisation is required. The writ petition is disposed of

accordingly.

K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE

M.C. HARI RANI
JUDGE
ks.

WPC.16171/2008 -3-

ks.