IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34494 of 2009(F)
1. M/S.PRIMA BEVERAGES PVT.LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY
... Respondent
2. THE ASST.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. THE HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION,
6. THE HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION,
7. THE ASST.LABOUR OFFICER, ALUVA.
For Petitioner :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :12/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
W.P.(C) No. 34494 of 2009
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
Raman, J.
Petitioner is a private limited company. The petitioner
is engaged in the business of sale of bottled drinking water.
According to the petitioner, he was engaging his own
permanent workers for all the works connected with the
factory, including loading and unloading. Loading and
unloading are incidental to the main work.
2. Respondents 5 and 6 and their members, however,
asserted that they were denied loading and unloading in the
establishment of the petitioner. Being a disputed the
question of fact, this Court by an elaborate interim order
passed on 23-12-2009 directed the Asst. Labour Officer to
verify the registers maintained by the petitioner and if it is
found that the petitioner is engaging his own permanent
workers for loading and unloading, the petitioner is entitled
W.P.(C) No. 34494/09 2
to get police protection. The Asst. Labour Officer, after due
enquiry, filed a report, as per which, it is stated that the
Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare)
Scheme has been brought into force in the area where the
petitioner’s establishment is situated. The petitioner by
Ext.P1 has applied for registration of his permanent workers.
Those permanent workers, according to him, were engaged
for loading and unloading work. Since the scheme is
implemented only very recently and since the application for
registration is pending consideration before the 3rd
respondent, it is assured by respondents 5 and 6 that they
will not cause any physical obstruction to the works of the
petitioner’s establishment. However, they plead that they
may also be heard by the Asst. Labour Officer before final
decision is taken on Ext.P1.
3. Having heard both sides, and having consideration
of the submissions made, there will be a direction that so
long as the petitioner engaged his own permanent workers
for loading and unloading operations, there will not be any
W.P.(C) No. 34494/09 3
objection caused by respondents 5 and 6. The Asst. Labour
Officer shall take and pass orders on Ext.P1 as expeditiously
as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment and after hearing the
petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. In case no registration is
granted, then the petitioner will not be entitled to protection
by virtue of this judgment. In the event of any obstruction
being caused, as stated, there will be a direction to
respondents 3 and 4 to give necessary protection to the
petitioner’s establishment.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.
mn.