A.Britto vs The Station House Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 18771 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 16101 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          A.BRITTO, AGED 51 YEARS,
          S/O.ANANTHARAJ, PROPRIETOR S.V.M. SOAPS AND DETERGENTS,
          1/772, KARIYAMKODE.P.O,KAPPIKKAD, ANAKKODE,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678572.

          BY ADVS.
          JACOB SEBASTIAN
          K.V.WINSTON


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
          KOTTAYI POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD,
          PIN-678572.

    2     THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,
          A.M.COMPLEX, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD,PIN:678014,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT OFFICER.

    3     CENTRE FOR INDIAN TRADE UNIONS(CITU),
          HEAD LOAD WORKERS ANAKKODE UNIT, ANAKKODE.P.O,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
          PIN-678572, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

          BY ADV.SRI.E.C.BINEESH, GP
          SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, R2
          SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16101 OF 2021
                                  -2-

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he has started a

small scale Soaps and Detergent Manufacturing Unit

as a means of finding employment for himself and

five permanent workers. He says that his employees

are capable of doing the loading and unloading

activities in his business, if necessary; but that

the 3rd respondent Union is now constantly

harassing and intimidating him, claiming that

their members can alone be engaged for the purpose

of loading and unloading works.

2. The petitioner asserts that the primary

activity in his business is not loading and

unloading, but that it is only ancillary; and

therefore, that he is fully entitled to engage his

own workers for such purposes, without having to

incur additional expenses by engaging other

persons.

WP(C) NO. 16101 OF 2021

3. The petitioner submits that, however,

since harassment from the members of the 3rd

respondent continued unabated, he was forced to

approach the 1st respondent - Station House

Officer, Kottayi Police Station, seeking

protection; and alleges that no action was taken

thereon, thus constraining him to approach this

Court.

4. The petitioner, therefore, prays that this

writ petition be allowed and the 1st respondent be

directed to afford him and his employees adequate

and effective protection, especially because the

area in question is not covered by any Scheme

under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 ('the

Act', for short).

5. I have heard Sri.Jacob Sebastian - learned

counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Thomas Abraham -

learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and

the learned Government Pleader - Sri.E.C.Bineesh WP(C) NO. 16101 OF 2021

appearing for the 1st respondent.

6. Even though notice from this Court has

been validly served on respondent No.3, they have

chosen not to be present in person or to be

represented through counsel; inferentially guiding

me to the impression that they have no opposition

to the reliefs, sought for by the petitioner,

being granted to him.

7. The learned Government Pleader -

Sri.E.C.Bineesh, submitted that the police are

keeping a constant vigil in the area in question,

and that no incidents of violation of law and

order or breach of peace have yet been noticed. He

submitted that they will continue to do so and

will ensure that no one takes law into their own

hands or commit any action which is contrary to

law.

8. Sri.Thomas Abraham - learned Standing

Counsel for the 2nd respondent - Board, affirmed WP(C) NO. 16101 OF 2021

that the area where the petitioner is carrying out

his business activities is not covered by any

Scheme under the Act.

9. When I evaluate the afore submissions,

particularly that of Sri.Thomas Abraham that the

area in question is not one covered by a Scheme

under the provisions of the Act, I am certain that

petitioner is entitled to the reliefs in this writ

petition.

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and

direct the 1st respondent - Station House Officer,

to ensure that the lives of the petitioner and his

employees are effectively protected from threat or

intimidation from any source, including the

members of the 3rd respondent; and further to act

as and when any complaint is made by the

petitioner with respect to any move in

contravention of law from the 3rd respondent or its

members, thus leading to necessary action in terms WP(C) NO. 16101 OF 2021

of law to be completed thereon swiftly and

quickly, without any avoidable delay.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 16101 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16101/2021

PETITIONER;S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENSE DATED AUGUST 10,2020 ISSUED BY THE MATHUR PANCHAYAT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 10,2021 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, ALATHUR ALONG WITH THE IDENTITY CARDS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S ATTACHED HEAD LOAD WORKERS.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED AUGUST 3, 2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE FIRST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE