Kerala High Court
Muhammed Shaneej.P vs The District Police Chief on 3 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 3518 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SHANEEJ.P
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, AMAZON DELIVERY CENTRE, SAS
ASSOCIATES, OLD GOWRI THEATER, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM.
BY ADV BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-
691 581.
3 THE HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,
DISTRICT COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 001.
4 THE SECRETARY, HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION (CITU),
NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN-691 003.
5 THE PRESIDENT, HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION(INTUC),
OPP: KCHELL RESIDENCY, PAN VEL- KANYAKUMARI HIGH WAY,
RAMANKUKANGARA, KUREEPUZHA NORTH, KAVANAD P.O. KOLLAM,
PIN-691 003
6 THE PRESIDENT, HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION (BMS),
NEAR DHANYA SUPER MARKET, ALTHARAMOODU, KAVANAD .P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691003.
ADDRESS OF R5 AND R6 CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED
A/3/2021 IN IA1/2021 IN WPC NO.3518/2021
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.K.SIJU
WP(C) NO. 3518 OF 2021
2
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.E C.BINEESH - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3518 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he has entered into Ext.P1
agreement with a company by name "Amazon Transportation
Services Private Limited", (hereinafter referred to as "Amazon"
for short) which is an Online merchandising service provider
and that he has taken a premises for storing and distributing
the articles involved in his business. He says that he has
permanent skilled workers to deal with the various articles
entrusted by "Amazon" for the purpose of distribution to its
customers and that most of them are fragile, which includes
electronic equipments and such other.
2. The petitioner says that the afore articles have to be
dealt with very carefully, because its improper handling would
cause its complete destruction and therefore, that none of the
workers in the "Pool" of the Headload Workers, under the
command of the 3rd respondent - Welfare Fund Board, can
claim exclusive right to deal with its loading and unloading
activities.
3. The petitioner alleges that, however, when he
proposed to start the business in the premises taken on rent,
WP(C) NO. 3518 OF 2021
members of respondents 4 to 6 Unions came to him and
demanded that they alone be entrusted with the loading and
unloading activities, or that they be paid Gawking Charges
"(Nokkukooli)", threatening that if this is not acceded to, he
will not be allowed to run the establishment. The petitioner
says that he, therefore, had no other option but to approach
the 2nd respondent - Station House Officer, through Ext.P3
seeking protection; but that since no action has been taken
thereon, he has been constrained to move this Court through
this writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri.Babu S.Nair - learned counsel for
the petitioner; Sri.Siju Kamalasanan - learned Standing
Counsel for the 3rd respondent; Sri.S.Sreekumar - learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and the learned
Government Pleader - Sri.E.C.Bineesh appearing for
respondents 1 and 2.
3. I notice from the file that the summon issued to
respondent No.6 has been returned with the endorsement
"unserved".
4. Sri. Siju Kamalasanan - learned Standing Counsel for
WP(C) NO. 3518 OF 2021
the 3rd respondent Board, submitted that the area where the
petitioner proposes to carry on his business is covered by a
Scheme under the Headload Workers Act and therefore, that
he is obligated to engage workers from the "Pool" maintained
by his client, under the provisions of the said Act.
5. Sri.S.Sreekumar - learned counsel appearing for the
4th respondent, alleged that petitioner has not even started his
business and that he has approached this Court by way of a
peremptory effort to deny employment to his clients and the
members of other Trade Unions. He submitted that the effort
of the petitioner is extremely confutative and thus prayed that
this writ petition be dismissed.
When I evaluate the afore submissions, there can be no
doubt that even if the area in question is covered by a Scheme
under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, none of the members
of the "Pool" attached maintained by the 3 rd respondent -
Board can claim right to deal in loading and unloading of
articles if they are fragile or electronic. This has been
affirmatively declared by this Court in various judgments
including the recent one, namely, A. Balakrishnan v. The
WP(C) NO. 3518 OF 2021
Deputy Superintendent of Police (W.P.(C) NO.28462/2020
& Con.Cases).
Therefore, the real question is whether the articles now
proposed to be dealt with by the petitioner are fragile or
electronic and this is not something that this Court can
consider affirmatively, while acting under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. As at present, the petitioner says that
the articles are fragile, which includes various electronic
equipments. If any of the party respondents and their men
have a case that it includes materials which are not fragile,
they certainly must approach the 3 rd respondent - Welfare
Fund Board with an appropriate application, so that an
apposite investigation can be launched to verify the nature of
the said articles at the relevant time. They, however, cannot
take law into their own hands and cause obstruction to the
activities of the petitioner, merely on the allegation that the
articles dealt with by him are not fragile or electronic ones.
In the afore perspective, I order this writ petition and
direct the 2nd respondent - Station House Officer, to afford
adequate and effective protection to the petitioner and to his
WP(C) NO. 3518 OF 2021
permanent employees to load and unload fragile and electronic
articles, which they are entrusted with under Ext.P1
agreement. The said respondent will also ensure that law and
order is maintained in the area where the petitioner is carrying
on business or proposed to carry on business, without any
breach being allowed by any person, including the party
respondents or their men or associates.
As far as the party respondents are concerned, they are
at the full liberty to approach the 3 rd respondent - Board or
such other competent Authority, if they have reliable
information that the petitioner is dealing with articles which
are not fragile or electronic in nature; in which event, the said
Authority/s will cause necessary enquiry into the same,
including physical inspection in the premises of the petitioner
and issue appropriate orders, which the petitioner will be
bound to comply with, subject to his available remedies.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
ANB
WP(C) NO. 3518 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3518/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT
ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND M/S.
AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT.LTD. DATED
03.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ONE AJITHA.P.V.
DATED 27.01.2021.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
08.02.2021.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.16941/2020 DATED
24.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.21382/2020 DATED
06.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.23583/2020 DATED
06.11.2020.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R3(a) THE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MINUTES BOOK
REGARDING THE MEETING HELD ON 17.01.2020
BETWEEN THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT IN KOLLAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE
AND THE OTHER FRANCHISEE OF AMAZON.
EXHIBIT R3(b) TRUE COPY OF 2 OF THE WORK CARD SHOWING THE
EMPLOYMENT OF WORKERS FROM THE POOL NO.38.
EXHIBIT R3(c) TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE WORK CARD SHOWING THE
EMPLOYMENT OF POOL WORKERS BY INSTAKART
SOLUTIONS.
