Kerala High Court
Nazarudheen P vs The Inspector Of Police on 11 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.15316 OF 2020(L)
PETITIONER:
NAZARUDHEEN P
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. LATE PAREETH RAWUTHER, KIZHAKKEKARAYIL HOUSE,
KURUVAMUZHY P O, KORATTY,
KOTTAYAM-686509.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE
SRI.CYRIAC KURIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KANJIRAPPALLY P O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686507.
2 CITU
KANJIRAPPALLY UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
P K NAZIR, PUTHENPLACKAL HOUSE, POOTHAKKUZHI,
VALAVANAPPARA, KANJIRAPPALLY PO,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686507.
3 CITU
PARATHODU UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
P K KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, PARIYATH HOUSE,
KOOVAPPALLY P O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686518.
4 INTUC(I)
KANJIRAPPALLY PARATHODU UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, ADV P JEERAJ, VATTAPPALLY HOUSE,
KANJIRAPPALLY P O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN 686507.
5 INTUC(A)
KANJIRAPPALLY-PARATHODU UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, M.I FASALY, PACHAVETTY HOUSE,
KANJIRAPPALLY P O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686507.
6 KTUC(M)
KANJIRAPPALLY-PARATHODU UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, JAMES PERUMAKKUNNEL,
KAPPAD P O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686508.
WP(C).No.15316 OF 2020 2
7 AITUC
KANJIRAPPALLY-PARATHODU UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, K.R. CHEALLAPPAN NAIR,
MANGALATHIL HOUSE, VENGATHANAM P O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686518.
8 HMS
KANJIRAPPALLY-PARATHODU UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, ADV.ANANDHAN, MATTAPPALLIL HOUSE,
ERUMELY P O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686509.
9 CKTU
KANJIRAPPALLY-PARATHODU UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY,C.K. BABU, CHETTUTHADAM HOUSE,
MUKKADA P O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686544.
10 BADUSHA
ANANDSHERIL HOUSE, THIDANADU PO,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686123.
11 KAUNDAN BASHEER
S/O. CHEMMUNN KAUNDAN, ANITHOTTAM HOUSE,
KANJIRAPPALLY, P O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686507.
12 V.D. JOSEPH @ KUNJAPPAN,
VALIYAKALLUMKAL HOUSE, KOOVAPPALLY PO, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT-686518.
13 ADDL.R13.
KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
P.B.NO.2017, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682018.
(ADDL R13 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11-09-
2020 IN IA 1/2020).
R2-9 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
R13 BY SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB
SMT SHEEJA CS SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.15316 OF 2020 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of necessary
directions to the police to afford protection to the petitioner and his family
members and workers from any threat or obstruction caused by the respondents 2
to 12 to the running of a weighbridge unit by the petitioner within the limits of the
Kanjirappally Panchayat.
2. The petitioner states that he is operating the weighbridge after
obtaining all permits and licenses from the statutory authorities. For the purpose
of loading and unloading the materials, the petitioner uses the services of
mechanical devices. It is stated that there is no requirement of engaging any
manual headload worker to carry out the operations in the weighbridge. He would
further state that the functional operation of the Headload Workers (Regulation
of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 has not been extended to the area
in question and therefore, the respondent Nos. 2 to 12 or their members can have
no preferential right to insist that they should be engaged in the establishment run
by the petitioner.
3. I have heard Sri. Sujit Mathew Jose, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Sri.Liji Vadakedom, the learned standing counsel who entered
appearance for respondents 2 to 9 and Sri.S Krishnamoorthy, the learned standing
counsel appearing for the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board.
4. Though notice was served on respondents 10 and 11, there is no
appearance. Notice to the 12th respondent was returned with an endorsement
'not Known'.
5. Sri. Sujith Mathew Jose submitted that the party respondents have no
right to disrupt the work in the establishment, particularly when mechanical
devices are used in the establishment for the operation and more so when the
scheme is not applicable to the area.
6. Sri.Liji J Vadakedom submitted that there is a proposal for including
the area and those proceedings are pending. He asserts that the allegation in the
writ petition that the respondents 2 to 9 and their union members have taken law
into their own hands and caused disruption is baseless and incorrect.
7. Sri. Krishnamoorthy submitted before this Court that the functional
operation of the scheme has not been extended to the area where the weighbridge
is situated.
8. I have considered the submissions advanced. It has come out from
the submissions that there is no scheme covering the area where the
establishment run by the petitioner is situated. If that be the case, no right to
preferential employment can be said to have been conferred on any headload
worker.
9. As it is the admitted position that the scheme has not been extended
to the area in question, I am of the considered opinion that the party respondents
have no right to obstruct the right of the petitioner to carry out loading and
unloading works of timber using cranes in his establishment. If any obstruction is
caused, the matter shall be informed to the 1st respondent who shall afford
adequate protection to the petitioner, his family members and workers to carry out
the operation in the weighbridge.
This petition will stand allowed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
IAP
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
27.07.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
26.06.2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
04.07.2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OP CARD DATED
03.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE COMMUNITY
HEALTH CENTRE, ERUMELY.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
