Saju George vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20249 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 20249 Ker
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2021

Kerala High Court

Saju George vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2021

               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. 19037 OF 2021


PETITIONERS:

    1     SAJU GEORGE
          AGED 47 YEARS
          S/O.P.M.GEORGE, SAJI MANDIRAM, VILLOOR, VETTIKKAVALA
          P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691538 (PARTNER, KOCHIN
          TRADING, KARICKATTIL BUILDING, CHOWKA ROAD, PUNALOOR-
          691305).

    2     ANJANA.S,
          AGED 22 YEARS
          D/O.B.ANILKUMAR, ANJANA BHAVAN, THOLICODE P.O.,
          PUNALOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691313 (PARTNER, KOCHIN
          TRADING, KARICKATTIL BUILDING, CHOWKA ROAD, PUNALOOR-
          691305).

          BY ADVS.
          K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)
          A.JOSEPH GEORGE (AZHIKKAKATH)




RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY STATE POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
          695001.

    2     THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
          KOLLAM (RURAL), KOLLAM DISTRICT-691006.

    3     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          PUNALOOR POLICE STATION-691006.

    4     THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          PUNALOOR POLICE STATION-691305.

    5     MR.MOHAMMED AJMAL,
 WP(C) NO. 19037 OF 2021
                                  2

          SECRETARY, HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION, CITU NO.168/79,
          RESIDING AT APSARA, CHALAKODE, PUNALOOR P.O.-691305,
          MOBILE NO.9447556060.

    6     SRI.BASHEER,
          SECRETARY, HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION, INTUC,
          REG.NO.359/76, RESIDING AT PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, POLICE
          STATION ROAD, CHEMMANDOOR P.O., PUNALOOR-691305, MOBILE
          NO.9947313705.

    7     SRI.SATHAR,
          POOL LEADER, CITU, RESIDING AT MARUTHI VILLA,
          PADINJATETHIL HOUSE, AGASTHYAKODE, ANCHAL P.O.-691306,
          MOBILE NO.9744782023.

    8     SRI.SHAJAHAN,
          POOL LEADER, CITU, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
          PAPER MILL P.O., PUNALOOR-691305, MOBILE NO.8086884363.

    9     SRI.KABEER,
          POOL LEADER, INTUC, RESIDING AT SHAN MANZIL, NEAR
          RAILWAY OVERBRIDGE, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION, PUNALOOR-
          691305, MOBILE NO.9495472712.

    10    SRI.JANAB,
          POOL LEADER, INTUC, RESIDING AT AISHA MANZIL,
          CHALAKODE, PAPER MILL P.O., PUNALOOR-691305, MOBILE
          NO.9605480703, 7356148131.

    11    THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER
          PUNALOOR-691305.

    12    ADDL.R12:HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND
          BOARD, KOLLAM.

           ADDL.R12 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
          22.09.2201 IN WPC NO. 19037/2021.

          BY ADV K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM)


          SRI, E C BINEESH - GP


     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. 19037 OF 2021
                                      3

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioners are stated to be the partners of a Firm by

name "Kochin Trading," which is engaged in the wholesale

business of groceries. According to them, they have their own

permanent employees, who have obtained statutory registration,

under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules and that they are,

therefore, entitled to engage them for the loading and unloading

activities in their business premises.

2. The petitioners say that, however, in spite of this,

respondents 5 to 10 - who are the office bearers of certain Unions

in the area - and their members obstructed their business,

asserting that they alone have the right to carry on the loading

and unloading works in the said area.

3. The petitioners concede that the area, where they are

conducting the business, is covered by a scheme under the

Headload Workers Act; but asserts that as long as their employees

are enjoying statutory registration, they cannot be obstructed

from being engaged in the loading and unloading activities. They WP(C) NO. 19037 OF 2021

say that they, therefore, approached the 3rd respondent - Station

House Officer, through Ext.P6 representation, seeking protection;

but that since no action was taken thereon, they have been

constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition.

4. Sri.Siju Kamalasanan, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the 12th respondent - Headload Workers Welfare

Fund Board, affirmed that petitioners' employees have been

issued statutory cards under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers

Rules; but alleged that this has been done incorrectly. He

submitted that, therefore, the Board is in the process of revoking

the same, through the process of law.

5. Sri.Joseph.K.J, learned counsel appearing for

respondents 5 to 10, submitted that they are not causing any

obstruction to the activities of the petitioners, as has been alleged;

but that they were only asserting their legal rights, as are

available to them under the provisions of the Headload Workers

Act, since the area in question is, concededly, covered by a

Scheme under it. He then added that the allegation, that his WP(C) NO. 19037 OF 2021

clients have used abusive language, is incorrect and that they

have not done so, nor do they intend to do so in future.

6. The learned Government Pleader - Sri.E.C.Bineesh,

submitted that since the petitioners' employees are still enjoying

statutory registration under the provisions of the Rules, the police

are ensuring that they are afforded adequate protection in terms

of the interim order of this Court dated 15.09.2021.

7. I notice from the file that this Court had issued the

following interim order on 15.09.2021:

"The petitioner will take out notice before admission by special messenger returnable within five days to respondents 5 to 10.

The learned Government Pleader seeks time to obtain instructions from R1 to R4 and R11.

List on 22.09.2021; until which time, the 3rd and 4th respondents will ensure that law and order is maintained in the area in question and there is no breach of peace by any person, including from the party respondents."

8. Pertinently, even the learned Standing Counsel for the

Board admits that petitioner's employees are enjoying statutory

registration, and hence, whether registration was granted in error WP(C) NO. 19037 OF 2021

or otherwise, is an issue which is beyond the purlieus of the

consideration by this Court in this writ petition; but it is certain

that as long as the registration continues, they cannot be

obstructed by any of the party respondents.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and

confirm the afore extracted interim order and direct the 3rd

respondent to ensure that he acts in terms of the same without fail

in future.

Needless to say, I have not spoken about the contentions of