IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23362 of 2009(M)
1. P.P.JAYAPRAKASH, MANAGING PARTNER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. C.I.T.U., SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :18/02/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 23362 of 2009 M
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction
to respondents 1 to 3 to protect the life and property of the
petitioner and enable him to conduct the business without any
interference from the 4th respondent’s union and to direct the 4th
respondent not to obstruct the lorries or the loading and
unloading works being carried out by the registered workers of
the petitioner.
2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows.
Petitioner is the Managing Partner of a firm carrying on
business in cement, iron, steel, soft drinks, cosmetics, stationery,
sugar and rice. Materials are brought and kept in the firm from
W.P.(C).No. 23362 of 2009
2
different parts of the ration and supplied to the customers on their
demand in their respective place. Such nature of work demands
loading and unloading works. The petitioner has appointed some
workers, who were registered under the Kerala Headload Workers Act
and Rules.
3. Some Head load workers in Nhangatteri – Thottappaya
locality, who belonged to CITU union, started obstructing the
vehicles coming to the petitioner’s firm and even entered into the
premises of the firm and threatened the petitioner and other registered
workers in the firm demanding ‘nokkukooli’. The petitioner filed
complaints before respondents 1 to 3, but they have not taken any
action . Hence this writ petition.
4. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The
substance of the complaint raised in the counter affidavit is that the
petitioner does not have any attached workers as claimed by him.
They have filed an additional counter affidavit also.
W.P.(C).No. 23362 of 2009
3
5. The Headload Workers’ Welfare Board was impleaded as the
7th respondent, which has also filed a counter affidavit. They raised a
contention on the basis of the alleged over writing.
6. The learned Government Pleader was asked to get
instructions. The Assistant Labour Officer is present today before us.
The learned Government Pleader submits that there is no over writing
as alleged. In such circumstances it would appear to us that the
petitioner is having his own registered Headload workers. If the 4th
respondent has a dispute, it is open to the 4th respondent to take up the
matter under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers’ Act.
7. Accordingly this Writ Petition is disposed of as follows.
There will be a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate
protection to the life and property of the petitioner and permit him to
conduct his business without any interference from the members of
the 4th respondent union. However, we make it clear that if the matter
is taken up by the 4th respondent before appropriate authority under
Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers’ Act, a decision will be
W.P.(C).No. 23362 of 2009
4
taken therein. The petitioner will co-operate in the matter. If it is
found that the claim of the petitioner that he is having his own
registered workers is incorrect, the petitioner will have to pay the
charges which he would have paid to the workers and it will be open to
the authority to recover the amount from the petitioner in accordance
with law. It is also made clear that protection afforded will be only to
enable the petitioner to carry out the work with the help of his
workers, in respect of whom he has obtained registration under the
Kerala Headload Workers’ Act.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm