IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15619 of 2010(B)
1. P.J.ABOOBACKER, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner
2. M.P.BIJU,S/O.PAPPANCHAN, MARUTHOLIL
3. P.A.MUHAMMED, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN,
4. V.N.SURESH, S/O. NARAYANAN,
5. P.RATHEESH, S/O. THAMPAN, DEVSIVAM
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. ASSISTAT LABOUR OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR,
5. CITU KEENPURAM UNIT, REPRESENTED BY
6. SYED MOHAMMED, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN,
7. PUSHPAN S/O. KARUPPAN, KAITHAPPARA HOUSE
For Petitioner :SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY
For Respondent :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :07/06/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.15619 of 2010-B
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 7th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking
police protection.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as
follows. The Ist petitioner is running an industrial unit.
According to the petitioners, petitioners 2 to 5 are permanent
workers for loading and unloading in the unit of the Ist
petitioner. They are having Ext.P4 identity cards and
registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Act.
3. The allegation is that petitioners are obstructed
by the party respondents who are trade union workers of the
locality. It is stated that proceedings under Sec.107 Cr.P.C is
pending. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 5
to 7.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties.
As far as petitioners 2 to 5 are concerned they are issued
WPC 15619/2010 -2-
Ext.P4 identity cards. The employer is shown as the Ist
petitioner. If that be so, petitioners 2 to 5 can carry on the
work of loading and unloading in the petitioner’s unit without
any obstruction by members of the 5th respondent and
respondents 6 and 7. In such circumstances, the writ petition
is disposed of making the interim order absolute. We,
however, make it clear that under the guise of this judgment
protection shall not be given to the Ist petitioner for the
purpose of doing loading and unloading work by employing
persons who do not have registration under the Kerala
Headload Workers Act.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS