Kerala High Court
Arun R vs District Police Chief on 26 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 22574 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
ARUN R.
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. RAMACHANDRA MENON, MANAGING PARTNER,
VISWAS NATURAL, VII/599 C, N.H VAYALAR JUNCTION,
PATTANAKAD P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA 688 531.
BY ADVS.
MANU HARSHAKUMAR
SRI. BINU SAM THOMAS
SRI.SAMEER.P.A
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, CCSB ROAD,
CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 012.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PATTANAKAD POLICE STATION,
CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA, 688 531.
3 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
GRADE II CHERTHALA, KODATHIKAVALA JUNCTION,
CHERTHALA, 688 524.
4 HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (INTUC)
PUTHIYAKAVU UNIT, PATTANAKAD P.O, 688 531,
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER.
5 HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU),
PUTHIYAKAVU UNIT, PATTANAKAD P.O, 688 531,
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER.
6 HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (BMS)
PUTHIYAKAVU UNIT, PATTANAKAD P.O, 688 531,
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVER.
WPC No.22574 of 2020 (V)
2
7 HEADLOAD AND GENRAL WORKERS UNION (AITUC),
PUTHIYAKAVU UNIT, PATTANAKAD P.O, 688 531,
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER.
8 HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (JSS),
PUTHIYAKAVU UNIT, PATTANAKAD P.O 688 531,
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVER.
*ADDL.R9 THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
ALAPPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 013.
[*ADDL.R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
05.08.2021 IN I.A.1/2021 IN WP(C)22574/2020.]
BY ADV SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB
SRI.E.C BINEESH, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No.22574 of 2020 (V)
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be the Managing Partner
of a Firm by name "M/s.Viswas Natural", stated to be engaged
in the business of trading of marbles, granites, ceramic tiles
etc.
2. The petitioner says that the Firm has permanent
employees, who are engaged for the purpose of segregating
and stacking the different types of marbles, granites, tiles etc.,
based on their variety, design and colour; and that, since the
said articles are delicate in its nature, the same employees
were trained to load and unload the same.
3. The petitioner alleges that even though the area
where the Firm is carrying on its business is not one which
comes within the ambit of the Scheme under the provisions of
the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978, the respondents 4 to
8 are causing obstructions in allowing their employees to carry
on the work of loading and unloading, asserting that they have
an exclusive right to be paid for the said work.
4. The petitioner contends that the actions of
respondents 4 to 8 are wholly illegal and that, the Firm was,
WPC No.22574 of 2020 (V)
therefore, constrained to approach respondent No.2 with
Ext.P2 request seeking adequate and effective protection from
the threats to their business and their employees from
respondents 4 to 8. He, however, accuses that, the
respondents have not initiated any action on Ext.P2, thus,
constraining him to approach this Court.
5. I have heard Sri.Manu Harshakumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner; Sri.E.C.Bineesh, learned
Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and
Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
9th respondent.
6. Even though notices have been served validly on
respondents 3 to 9 from this Court, there is no appearance on
their behalf; thus, constraining me to dispose of this writ
petition in their absence.
7. Sri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Government Pleader,
affirmed that the area where the Firm of the petitioner is
carrying on business, is not one within the Scheme under the
Headload Workers Act, 1978; and thus added that if this Court
directs necessary protection be afforded to the petitioner and
his workmen for loading and unloading works relating to their
WPC No.22574 of 2020 (V)
business, the police authorities will take all necessary action.
8. Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel for
the 9th respondent - Board also agreed that the area where the
petitioner's Firm is conducting their business does not come
within the purview of the Scheme under the Headload Workers
Act, 1978; and therefore, prayed that no further orders be
issued against his client.
9. I notice from the file that, on 05.08.2021, a learned
Judge of this Court granted an interim order, directing
respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection to the petitioner and
his business. Since no contentions are raised against the
same, by any of the party respondents today, I deem it
appropriate to allow this writ petition.
Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed; and I,
consequently, direct respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that
adequate and effective protection is made available to the
petitioner, his business premises and his employees from any
intimidation or threat from respondents 4 to 8 or their men;
and to further ensure that law and order is maintained in the
area without any breach in future.
Needless to say, if any specific instances of threat
WPC No.22574 of 2020 (V)
or intimidation is hereinafter brought to the notice of
respondents 1 and 2 by the petitioner, they will act swiftly to
ensure that the same is dealt with as per law.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ww
WPC No.22574 of 2020 (V)
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22574/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24-08-
2019 PETITION FILED BEFORE PATTANAKADU
POLICE.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE
PATTANAKADU POLICE STATION DATED 09-
10-2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF PETITION
FILED BEFORE PATTANAKKADU POLICE
STATION DATED 09-10-2020.
EXHIBIT P4 GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF
"VISWAS NATURAL" ESTABLISHMENT MANAGED
BY PETITIONER.
