Kerala High Court
A.Balakrishnan vs Ajayakumar on 8 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943
RP NO. 509 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2020 IN WP(C) 23131 of 2020
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
A.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 57 YEARS
SON OF P.ARJUNA REDDIAR, SOLE PROPRIETOR,
SREELAKSHMI DISTRIBUTORS AND GOOD MORNING
ENTERPRISES, PALACE WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 011.
BY ADVS.
P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
T.S.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 AJAYAKUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS, SON OF ASHOKAN,
KIZHAKKETHAYYIL PATHINETTIL CHIRA, ALAPPUZHA-688
561.
2 MANOJ.P.A.,
AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF ANTONY VARGHEESE,
PATTANIPARAMBIL, ARATTUVAZHY P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688
524.
3 NAVAS,
AGED 40 YEARS, SON OF NARAYANA PANICKER, KRISHNA
SADANAM, KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA-688 522.
4 AKHIL KUMAR,
AGED 24 YEARS, SON OF ANIYANKUNJ, PADIJAREKALAM,
ATTUVATHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 503.
-2-
RP NO. 509 OF 2021
5 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DLO, THONDANKULANGARA,
THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA-688 013.
6 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
FIRST CIRCLE ALAPPUZHA, FIRST FLOOR, SAS
BUILDING, THONDANKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA-688 013.
7 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NORTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 012.
8 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
ALAPPUZHA-688 001.
9 SHAJI,
CONVENER, CITU, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CANAL WARD,
ALAPPUZHA-688 007, 7 SALIM, INTUC,
KOCHINGAMPARAMBU, CANAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 007.
10 KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT COMMITTEE,
MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, THATHAMPALLY P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA-688 013.
BY ADV SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT MAYA M.N- GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
RP NO. 509 OF 2021
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C)
No.23131 of 2020 has filed this review petition under Order XLVII
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an order to
review the judgment of this Court dated 30.10.2020 in that writ
petition, which was one filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein, who
are stated to be the workers of M/s.Sreelakshmi Distributors and
M/s.Good Morning Enterprises, seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding respondents 7 and 8 herein to grant them sufficient
police protection to do loading and unloading work in the godown
of M/s.Sreelakshmi Distributors and M/s.Good Morning
Enterprises, Building No.46/784, CCNB Road, Near Kallupalam,
Alappuzha. The writ petitioners have also sought for a writ of
certiorari to quash Ext.P6 order dated 20.10.2010 of the
Assistant Labour Officer, the 6th respondent herein and a writ of
mandamus commanding respondents 5 & 6 herein to issue them
necessary identity cards under Rule 26A(3) of the Kerala
Headload Workers Rules, 1981, in Form-XI. By judgment dated
30.10.2020 this Court dismissed W.P.(C).No.23131 of 2020, since
RP NO. 509 OF 2021
the writ petitioners cannot challenge Ext.P6 order dated
20.10.2020 of the 6th respondent herein, invoking the writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, in view of the statutory remedy of appeal provided under
Section 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 and since
the writ petitioners have already availed that statutory remedy
by filing Ext.P7 memorandum of appeal on the reliefs sought for
in the writ petition for police protection to do loading and
unloading work in the establishment in question. In paragraphs
10 and 11 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court
observed as follows:
"10. Another relief sought for in this writ petition is for
police protection, i.e., a writ of mandamus commanding
respondents 4 and 5 to grant sufficient police protection to
the petitioners to do the loading and unloading work in the
godown (Building No.46/784) of Sreelakshmi Distributors
and Good Morning Enterprises.
11. Admittedly, the area in question is a scheme covered
area. The applications made by the petitioners for issuance
of identity cards under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload
Workers Rules have already been rejected. In such
circumstances, the petitioners cannot seek a writ of
mandamus commanding respondents 4 and 5 to grant
RP NO. 509 OF 2021
police protection so as to enable them to do the loading
and unloading work in the establishment in question, which
is situated in a scheme covered area."
2. In this review petition, which is one filed by the 3 rd
respondent in W.P.(C).No.23131 of 2020, it is contended that the
establishment in question owned by the review petitioner will not
come within the ambit of the Kerala Headload Workers Act and as
such the headload workers employed in the establishment are
not required to obtain identity cards as contemplated under Rule
26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules.
3. Now, in view of the observations contained in para 11
of the judgment sought to be reviewed, the 10 th respondent
herein, Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, who is the 8 th
respondent in W.P.(C) No.28462 of 2020, filed by the review
petitioner, contended that in view of the observation contained as
above in paragraph 11 of the judgment, for engaging headload
workers in the establishment in question, the review petitioner
can engage only headload workers who are issued with identity
cards under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules.
RP NO. 509 OF 2021
4. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner,
the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, the learned
Government Pleader for respondents 5 to 8 and also the learned
Standing Counsel for the 10th respondent.
5. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on
both sides, this Court finds that there is no error apparent on the
face of record warranting review of the judgment dated
30.10.2020 in W.P.(C).No.23131 of 2020. Admittedly, The area in
question is a scheme covered area. The question as to whether
the establishment of the review petitioner will come under the
purview of the Kerala Headload Workers Act and the Rules made
thereunder, was not an issue raised and decided in the judgment
sought to be reviewed.
With the above clarification, this review petition is disposed
of.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-
RP NO. 509 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF RP 509/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
Annexure A1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WPC NO.14656 OF 2020 DATED 24.11.2020 OF
THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
Annexure A2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COUNTER
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT,
WHO IS THE 8TH RESPONDENT IN WPC
NO.28462 OF 2020 DATED 7TH JULY W021.
