IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13237 of 2009(Y)
1. M/S. EASTERN CONDIMENTS PVT. LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE SECRETARY,
5. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.KOSHY GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :10/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) Nos. 13160, 13237 & 13238 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Bhavadasan, J,
Since common issues arise for consideration, these
writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. M/s. Eastern Condiments Pvt. Ltd., petitioner in
all these cases, runs business in curry powder. The curry
powders are packed in cartons and the cartons are distributed at
various places. The articles are taken in the van belonging to
the company and they have permanent workers to go along
with the goods. The delivery van goes from place to place
carrying the goods and accompanied by employees and articles
are unloaded wherever it is necessary. According to the
petitioner in all these cases, when the business was running
smoothly, certain headload workers began to interfere. That
causes considerable difficulties to the petitioner and they were
WPC. 13160/2009 & con.cases. 2
not able to deliver the goods in time. Complaints preferred before
the police authorities had no impact. The concern is marketing the
goods to various places and these three petitions are in respect of
three areas, where the concern does its business. In the light of the
hindrance caused by the various unions, it has become necessary
for them to seek police protection for the smooth running of their
business.
3. In all these three cases, the party respondents were
served by special messenger. None of them appeared. The Kerala
Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board later impleaded as
additional 9th respondent has objected to the claim made by the
petitioner.
4. This court had granted interim order in W.P.(C)
13233 of 2009 and W.P.(C) 13238 of 2009 on 21.5.2009 and in
W.P.(C) 13160 of 2009 on 26.5.2009. The police officers
concerned in each case were directed to see that no obstructions are
caused for the loading and unloading of the goods by engaging the
WPC. 13160/2009 & con.cases. 3
registered workers concerned and any obstruction, if caused, shall
be removed.
5. As already stated, none of the contesting respondents
have actually filed any objection. The objection raised by the 9th
respondent is that if the prayers made in the petitions are allowed,
that would be defeating the provisions of the Headload Workers
Act, 1978. The contention taken is that the registered workers of
the company can carry on loading and unloading work within the
precinct of the establishment and not beyond that.
6. It is unnecessary to go deep into the matter because
an identical issue has already been decided by this court and the
same is reported in Cresent Trading Company v. Sub Inspector
of Police (2009 (3) K.L.T. 16). In the said decision the various
provisions urged before court were looked into and interpreting the
words “in the establishment or for the establishment”, this court
held that in such cases as the one prayed for by the petitioner, they
are entitled to protection. Paragraph 8 of the decision reads as
WPC. 13160/2009 & con.cases. 4
follows:
“Even though “establishment” as defined my be a
definite place where the business activities is being
carried on, the definition of the term ‘headload worker’
shows that the work is not confined within the
establishment. As per S.2(m) of the Act, ‘headload
worker’ is a person either employed or engaged directly
or through a contractor, and such engagement could be
“in the establishment or for the establishment”. When
the legislature has used the expression “in the
establishment or for the establishment” it takes in
loading and unloading work both within the
establishment and outside, but in the later case, the
work must be connected with the establishment. When
it is said that headload worker is a person directly
employed or through the contractor in the establishment
or for the establishment, there cannot be any doubt that
in order to become a headload worker, he need not
necessarily be a person whose activities connected with
loading and unloading is confined to any particular
premises, rather he can also be a person who my work
for an establishment which necessarily means outside
WPC. 13160/2009 & con.cases. 5
the establishment as well. If the contention of the
respondents is accepted, in so far as persons who are not
attached with an establishment will fall outside the
definition to the term headload worker. As a matter of
fact, the word”employer” as defined under S.2(i) of the
Act, would show that in case of a headload worker who
engaged by or through a contractor, the employer is the
principal employer, ad in the case of a headload worker
who is not employed or engaged by any employer or
contractor, the employer is th Committee appointed
under S.18 and as per the explanation, a headload
worker is a person registered as headload worker under
the Scheme, and whose wages are paid by the employer
or contractor through the Committee concerned. As per
cl.2(i)(iii), in relation to any other headload worker, the
person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the
establishment in or for which the headload worker is
employed and includes any other person to whom the
affairs of such establishment are entrusted, whether
such person is called an agent, manager or by any other
name prevailing in such establishment. Thus, the
legislature, all through uses the expression ‘in’ the
establishment as also ‘for’ the establishment, thereby
WPC. 13160/2009 & con.cases. 6
leaving no room to doubt that the loading and unloading
work involved may be even outside any definite
premises and that the work may either be within the
precincts of the establishment. So however in the latter
case, work should be connected with the establishment.
If it is to be understood in the manner as contended by
the third respondent, then a person who has no definite
premises to work will fall outside the definition of the
term ‘worker’. The third respondent who has no
permanent establishment under whom he works will not
come within the definition of the term ‘headload
worker’. Therefore, we are unable to accept the
contention as raised by the third respondent.”
7. The principle laid down in the above decision
applies to the present cases. There is no difference either on facts
or regarding the law applicable.
In the circumstances, the interim orders passed by this
court on various dates are made absolute. In case any obstruction
is caused by the party respondents in each of the cases, the police
officials concerned shall see that necessary protection is given to
WPC. 13160/2009 & con.cases. 7
them to carry on their business. Needless to say that the contesting
respondents cannot cause any obstruction not only within the
establishment, but also outside the establishment.
The writ petitions are allowed as above.
P.R. Raman,
Judge
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge
sb.