P.B.Abdulla Koya vs Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 17656 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 5TH BHADRA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 13998 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

               P.B.ABDULLA KOYA,
               AGED 52 YEARS
               S/O. BAHABI KOYA, PUTHEN MALIYEKKAL HOUSE,
               THOTTUMUKHAM, ALUVA, 683 105.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
               SRI.S.SUJIN

RESPONDENTS:

    1          INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
               AROOR POLICE STATION, CHERTHALA,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 533.

    2          P.B. DEVADAS,
               SECRETARY, HEAD LOAD GENERAL WORKERS UNION CITU,
               THURAVOOR P.O. ADOOR,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 532.

    3          K.P. HARIDAS,
               KARIMADATHIL NUKATH, THURAVOOR P.O., AROOR,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 532.

    4          BABU,
               PEEDIYAPARAMBIL ERAMALLOOR,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 532.


               BY ADV. SRI.E.C.BINEESH -GP


        THIS    WRIT   PETITION     (CIVIL)    HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   27.08.2021,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC No.13998 of 2021 (Y)
                                    2


                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he is the Managing Director of

a business entity by name "Unity Man Power Solution Private

Limited" and that their primary business is to deliver materials of

"Berger Paints India Limited" from their main godown to the

areas where their show rooms are situated.

2. He asserts that their business activities are carried out

in areas which are not covered by the provisions of the Kerala

Headload Workers Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' as

short); but that, inspite of the same, respondents 2 to 4 are now

obstructing the loading and unloading works. He asserts that the

actions of respondents 2 to 4 are illegal and that they are now

unleashing intimidation against him and his employees in order

to scare them from carrying out their legal activities. The

petitioner says that he, therefore, preferred Ext.P2 application

before the 1st respondent and alleges that the said respondent

does not acted upon it yet; thus, constraining him to approach

this Court.

3. I have heard Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, learned Senior

Counsel, instructed by Sri.S.Sujin - learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Government Pleader. WPC No.13998 of 2021 (Y)

4. Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, learned Senior Counsel

supplemented the afore by saying that, as is evident from Ext.P1,

the Statutory Board has already certified that the area, where his

client is engaged in their business, are not covered by the

Scheme under the Act. He thus reiteratingly submitted that,

therefore, respondents 2 to 4 cannot seek any right in the

loading and unloading activities carried on by his client.

5. The learned Government Pleader, Sri.E.C.Bineesh,

affirmed that if Ext.P1 is still in force, then the petitioner will be

entitled to engage their own permanent workers for the purpose

for loading and unloading works relating to their business; and

added that, in fact, an interim order has already issued by this

Court on 14.07.2021 to such effect. He then submitted that, if

this Court is so inclined, then the 1 st respondent will act as and

when any complaint is given or made by the petitioner against

respondents 2 to 4 or any other person acting under them.

6. I notice that even though summons have been validly

served on respondents 2 to 4, they have chosen not to appear or

to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me to the

impression that they have no objection to the reliefs sought for by

the petitioner is being granted by this Court.

Resultantly and since the area in question, when the WPC No.13998 of 2021 (Y)

petitioner is carrying a business, is stated to be not covered by the

Scheme under the Act, as is also evidenced from Ext.P1, I direct the

1st respondent to afford adequate and effective police protection to

the petitioner and his employees, as and when any complaint is

made by them against respondents 2 to 4 or any other person

acting under them; thus to ensure that law and order is always

maintained and that all threats and intimidations are averted and

dealt with as per law.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

ww WPC No.13998 of 2021 (Y)

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13998/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1             TRUE   COPY   OF    CERTIFICATE   DATED
                       30.03.2021, ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
                       KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD.

EXHIBIT P2             TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL
                       FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
                       INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTHIYATHODU.