V.O.Pappachan vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20216 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 17293 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          V.O. PAPPACHAN
          AGED 72 YEARS
          S/O. OUSEPH,
          RESIDING AT VEZHAPARAMBIL PARAPPILLY HOUSE,
          MATTOOR, KALADY,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 546.

          BY ADVS.
          ANOOP.V.NAIR
          RAMESH CHAND
          DEVI PADMA
          A.K. ANANDA KRISHNAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
    2     THE DEPUTY SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE
          OFFICE OF THE DYSP, PERUMBAVOOR,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542.
    3     THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
          KALADY POLICE STATION,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574.
    4     KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,
          ANGAMALY COMMITTEE,
          ANGAMALY P. O,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
          PIN - 683 572.
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
    5     THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER
          OFFICE OF THE ALO,
          ANGAMALY,
          ERNAKULAM DISRTICT - 683 572.
    6     K.V. YOHANAN
          KULANGARA HOUSE, MATTOOR,
          KALADY,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574.
 WP(C).No.17293 OF 2021

                                 2
     7       ELDHO MATHUTTY
             KULANGARA HOUSE, MATTOOR,
             KALADY,
             ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574.

             SRI. S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB
             SRI. E C BINEESH - G.P



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   30.09.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.17293 OF 2021

                                       3




                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

alleging that he and his employees are being

threatened and intimidated by respondents 6 and

7, thus obstructing the business-which is a

small shop being run under the name 'V.P

Traders'. He says that he is dealing in cement

and that he is operating under all necessary

licences and consents obtained from the

competent statutory Authorities.

2. The petitioner, however, concedes that

the area where the business is being run is

covered by a Scheme under the Headload Workers

Act: but asserts that he has his own employees,

who are enjoying registration under the said Act

and have been issued cards under Rule 26A of the

Kerala Headload Workers Rules (for short 'the

Rules'). He alleges that, in spite of this,

respondents 6 and 7 are obstructing his business WP(C).No.17293 OF 2021

activities and therefore, that he was

constrained to approach the 3rd respondent Circle

Inspector of Police, through Ext.P4, seeking

protection; but that since no action was taken

thereon, he has been constrained to approach

this Court through this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri.Anoop V.Nair-learned

counsel for the petitioner; Sri.S.Krishna

Moorthy- learned Standing Counsel appearing for

the 4th respondent and the learned Government

Pleader- Sri.E.C.Bineesh for respondents 1 to 3.

4. Even though notice from this Court has

been validly served on respondents 6 and 7, they

have chosen not to be present in person or to be

represented through counsel; inferentially

guiding me to the impression that they have

nothing to offer in answer to the various

allegations made in this writ petition.

5. Sri.S.Krishna Moorthy-learned Standing

Counsel for the 4th respondent-Board, conceded

that the employees of the petitioner appear to WP(C).No.17293 OF 2021

be holding valid cards under Rule 26A of the

Rules, but submitted that he has not produced

any of the other necessary registers and records

on the files of this case.

6. The learned Government Pleader-

Sri.E.C.Bineesh, submitted that Police are

keeping vigil in the area in question and that

the interim order of this Court, dated

17.09.2021, has been effectively implemented.

7. I notice that the afore interim order

mentioned by the learned Government Pleader, was

issued to the following effect:

"The petitioner will take out notice before admission by speed post returnable within seven days to respondents 6 and 7. Sri.Krishna Moorthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 and the learned Government Pleader, Sri.E.C.Bineesh, for respondents 1 to 3 seek time to obtain instructions in this matter.

I, however, record the submissions of Sri.Krishna Moorthy that the area in question is covered under the scheme of Headload Workers Act.

List this matter on 30.09.2021, until which time the 3rd respondent-Circle Inspector of Police will ensure that there are no law and order violations in the area in question and that no one commits WP(C).No.17293 OF 2021

any breach of peace."

8. Since, I notice that respondents 6 and 7

are keeping away from this Court and it is

conceded that the employees of the petitioner

are holding valid registration Under Rule 26A of

the Rules, I do not see how respondents 6 and 7

can create any obstruction or take law into

their own hands. If they have any complaint

that the activities of the petitioner's business

are not being carried on in terms of law, they

have to approach the competent Authority,

including the 4th respondent-Board, who can

thereupon take necessary action as per the

provisions of the Headload Workers Act. For

this reason also, I do not think that I must

adjudicate the contention of Sri.S.Krishna

Moorthy, regarding the Registers to be

maintained by the petitioner, since it is always

within the right of the competent Authorities to

verify the same as per law.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this WP(C).No.17293 OF 2021

writ petition and confirm the interim order

dated 17.09.2021; with a consequential direction

to the 3rd respondent to ensure that petitioner

and his employees - who are holding valid 26A

cards, are permitted to conduct the loading and

unloading activities in his business without any

let or hindrance from respondents 6 and 7 or

their men or associates.

Needless to say, if the petitioner requires

any additional personnel, he will have to

approach the 4th respondent-Board appropriately,

who shall then make available such persons, as

per the provisions of the Headload Workers Act.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

SPR WP(C).No.17293 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.SHO70800080928, DATED 08.02.2021, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF HIS SHOP.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO,A2-

3762/2021-22-578, DATED 07/07/2021 ISSUED FROM THE KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN RESPECT OF THE NEW SHOP AT MATTOOR, TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 26A CARD ISSUED TO THE EMPLOYEE OF THE PETITIONER'S SHOP MR.SHIJO.A.K., DATED 29.06.2021.

EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 26A CARD ISSUED TO THE EMPLOYEE OF THE PETITIONER'S SHOP MR.SINO.M.J, DATED 29.06.2021.

EXHIBIT P3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 26A CARDS ISSUED TO THE EMPLOYEE OF THE PETITIONER'S SHOP MR.MANOJ.V.K, DATED 29.06.2021.

EXHIBIT P4         TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
                   13.09.2021     SUBMITTED     BY    THE

PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPTS ISSUED FROM THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT'S OFFICE.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.