Diya Automobiles vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20273 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 20273 Ker
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2021

Kerala High Court

Diya Automobiles 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. 17669 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          DIYA AUTOMOBILES
          11/520 B.C, CHAVITTUVARY, NATTASSERY, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686
          016, REP BY ITS PARTNER MR. AHNAS MOHAMED.

          BY ADVS.
          JOY THATTIL ITTOOP
          BABY SONIA
          BIJISH B.TOM



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    2     THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM-686 008.

    3     SRI M.S VENU KUTTAN,
          CONVENOR, CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNION (CITU), MURICKAL
          HOUSE, MARIYATHRUTH P.O.KOTTAYAM-686 017.



          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. 17669 OF 2021
                                    2



                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be engaged in selling spare parts

of motor bikes, manufactured by certain companies. The

petitioner concedes that they are carrying out their business in an

area which is covered by a Scheme notified under the provisions

of the Kerala Headload Workers Act; but asserts that, as has been

declared in Ext.P4 judgment, same does not apply to their

Establishment.

2. The petitioner says that they have their own workers to

carry out the incidental work of loading and unloading the articles

for sale; but that in spite of this, the 3rd respondent - who claims

to be the Convener of a Trade Union - and his men, are causing

incessant obstruction in their activities, thus forcing them to have

approached the 2nd respondent - Sub Inspector of Police, through

Ext.P2, seeking protection. The petitioner says that in spite of

this, no action was taken by the said Authority, thus constraining

them to move this Court through this writ petition. WP(C) NO. 17669 OF 2021

3. I have heard Sri.Joy Thattil - learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh - learned Government Pleader

appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

4. Even though notice has been validly served from this

Court on the 3rd respondent, he has chosen not to be present in

person or to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding

me to the impression that he has no objection to the reliefs sought

for by the petitioner being granted by this Court.

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

affirmed that Ext.P4 judgment was obtained by the petitioner,

with respect to their Establishment in another area and that it has

been declared by this Court that same will not come under the

ambit of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. He submitted that,

therefore, the police are now affording adequate and effective

protection to the petitioner and their employees in terms of the

interim order of this Court dated 02.09.2021.

6. I notice that on 02.09.2021, this Court had issued the

following interim order:

WP(C) NO. 17669 OF 2021

"The petitioner will take out notice before admission by speed post to respondent No.3, returnable within seven days.

Sri.E.C.Bineesh will obtain instructions from respondents 1 and 2.

List on 16.09.2021, until which time, if the petitioner has permanent members on his role, the 2 nd respondent will ensure that they are allowed to continue their work without any obstruction or interference by any person including R3 and his associates."

7. Since the 5th respondent is not appearing before this

Court and since Ext.P4 judgment of this Court clearly declares

that the Establishment of the petitioner does not come within the

ambit of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, I deem it necessary to

allow this writ petition, confirming the afore interim order.

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the afore

extracted interim order is confirmed; consequently, directing the

2nd respondent to ensure that adequate and effective protection is

afforded to the petitioner and their employees for carrying out

their activities, from any threats or interference from the 3 rd

respondent or their men or associates; and that, as and when any WP(C) NO. 17669 OF 2021

complaint is preferred with respect to any violation of this, said