Kerala High Court
Kerala Headload Workers Welfare ... vs Asiatic Transports on 24 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1944
WA NO. 23 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22388/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.7
KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD REPRESENTED
BY ITS CHAIRMAN
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KUMMANCHERY BUILDING,
T.D. ROAD, KOCHI -682035
BY ADV S.KRISHNA MOORTHY(ERNAKULAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6
1 ASIATIC TRANSPORTS
PETITIONER -REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. K.M.
NASSARUDDIN, H. NO. XXIII/624, PALLIKUNNIL HOUSE,
BYE PASS ROAD, NETTOOR, ERNAKULAM -682040, PIN -
682040
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MULAVUKAD POLICE STATION, PONNARIMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM ., PIN - 682504
4 GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS (KERALA ) LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, CONTAINER FREIGHT
STATION, MAIN ROAD, NH 966A, VALLARPADAM, ERNAKULAM
-682504, PIN - 682504
5 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
2
CONGRESS (INTUC)
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, INTUIC
BHAVAN, INTUC ROAD, VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKUALM .,
PIN - 682016
6 ERNAKULAM JILLA CONTAINER THOZHILALI SANGHAM (BMS)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BMS OFFICE, I.S.
PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM ., PIN - 682018
7 HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION ( CITU)
REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT PRESIDENT, KARL MARX
BUILDING, NEAR TOWN HALL, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM
-682018.
8 ADDL.R8: COCHIN PORT TRUST AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,WILLINGDON
ISLAND,KOCHI,KERALA,PIN-682 009. * IS SUO MOTU
IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R8 AS PER ORDER DATED 7-2-
23.
BY ADVS.
P.RAMAKRISHNAN - R1
GP SRI.SREEJITH V.S. - R2
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR - R4
MILLU DANDAPANI - R5
V.P.PRASAD - R6 AND R7
K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)
NAYANPALLY RAMOLA(MAH/6224/2014)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.02.2023, ALONG WITH WA.176/2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1944
WA NO. 176 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22388/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.4
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS
CONGRESS (INTUC)
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SHRI K.U.
GOPI INTUC BHAVAN, INTUC ROAD, VALANJABALAM,
ERNAKULAM 682 016.
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 7
1 ASIATIC TRANSPORTS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. K.M.
NASSARUDDIN, H.NO. XXIII/624, PALLIKUNNIL HOUSE,
BYE-PASS ROAD, NETTOOR, ERNAKULAM 682 040.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
001.
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MULAVUKAD POLICE STATION, PONNARIMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM - 682 504.
4 GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS (KERALA) LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, CONTAINER FREIGHT
STATION, MAIN ROAD, NH-966A, VALLARPADAM,
ERNAKULAM - 682 504.
5 ERNAKULAM JILLA CONTAINER THOZHILALISANGHAM (BMS),
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
4
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BMS OFFICE, IS PRESS
ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 018.
6 HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU),
REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT PRESIDENT, KARL MARX
BUILDING, NEAR TOWN HALL, BANNERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM
682 018.
7 KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KUMMANCHERY
BUILDING, TD ROAD, KOCHI - 682035 REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHAIRMAN.
8 ADDL.R8:COCHIN PORT TRUST AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,WILLINGDON
ISLAND,KOCHI,KERALA,PIN-682 009. IS SUO MOTU
IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R8 AS PER ORDER DATED 7-2-
2023.
BY ADV PRASAD V.P - R6
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP-SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS - R2
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.02.2023, ALONG WITH WA.23/2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
5
K.VINOD CHANDRAN & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal Nos. 23 & 176 of 2023
-------------------------------------------
Dated this 24th February, 2023
JUDGMENT
K.Vinod Chandran, J.
The writ appeals raise the question of whether the members
of a Pool constituted under the Kerala Headload Workers
(Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 have an
indefeasible right to carry on the loading and unloading work in
the 3rd respondent's establishment, carried out through the
petitioner. We refer to the parties from their status in the writ
petition since appeals arise from the judgment in the single writ
petition.
2. The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the
business of clearing, forwarding & transporting. The 3 rd
respondent has been appointed and notified as the Custodian of
goods in the Container Freight Station (CFS) by the Commissioner
of Customs. The petitioner has taken the contract to carry on the
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
loading and unloading work in the CFS; which premises has been
notified as a 'Customs Area' under Section 8(b) of the Customs Act
and the activities carried on by the 3 rd respondent is fully under
the control of the Commissioner of Customs. It was argued that
the Kerala Headload Workers Act has been made inapplicable to
establishments owned and controlled by the Central Government
as per the notification which brought into force the enactment.
3. The learned Single Judge relied on the decisions in
Hindustan Latex Employees Welfare Society v.
Trivandrum District Headload and General Workers'
Union (2010 (4) KLT 391) and APM Terminals India PVT.
LTD, v. The Sub Inspector of Police (WPC 15595 of 2014
dated 9.3.2016) to find that the area in which the 3 rd respondent
carries on its activities is fully under the control of the Customs
and therefore is an establishment to which the Headload Workers
Act, the Rules and the Scheme framed there under do not apply.
Consequently, it was directed that if the petitioner's work of
loading and unloading carried on within the premises of the 3 rd
respondent is obstructed, then, the police shall afford necessary
protection to remove such obstruction.
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
4. Sri.S. Krishna Moorthi, the learned Standing Counsel for
the Welfare Board, the appellant in W.A. 23 of 2023, at the outset
contends that the petitioner is not an establishment controlled or
owned by the Central Government. The petitioner is a proprietary
concern which has entered into an agreement with the 3rd
respondent, the terms of which clearly indicates it to be a purely
commercial venture. The 3rd respondent also has entered into a
commercial agreement with the Commissioner of Customs and
both the establishments are private establishments aimed solely at
profiteering; over which the Central Government has absolutely
no control. The terms of the lease entered into by the 3 rd
respondent with the Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port as seen
from Ext.R4(a) is specifically read out to show the huge financial
implications which also points to the large scale profit generated
from the business activity. The learned counsel would stress the
requirement for an all pervasive control or a major share holding,
by the Central Government, for the exception to squarely apply.
Both these aspects being absent and the activities of the 3 rd
respondent being carried in a Scheme covered area, the members
of the Pool constituted under the Scheme have a right to carry on
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
the loading and unloading work, unless the establishment has its
own workers having Rule 26A cards; which in any case is not the
contention of the petitioner. The decision in Hindustan Latex
Employees Welfare Society (supra) is sought to be
distinguished on the ground that the company which was carrying
on a manufacturing unit was fully owned by the Central
Government. The decision in APM Terminals India PVT.
LTD (supra) was also sought to be distinguished on the ground
that there, the police protection granted was on the ground that
there was no permission to the headload workers to enter the
bonded area of the Customs. In the present case, there is a
statutory right on the members of the Pool constituted under the
Scheme to carry on the loading and unloading work in the Scheme
covered area and it is the bounden duty of the Customs to grant
permission for entry of such workers into the premises of the 3 rd
respondent. It is also pointed out that there is no impediment in
granting such permission since for the last more than one decade
the petitioner was carrying on the loading and unloading work
through the Pool workers. The same was stopped abruptly, thus
interfering with the statutory right conferred on the workers.
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
5. Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned counsel appearing for one
of the Unions, the appellant in WA.176 of 2023, adopts the
arguments of the Board. In addition it is pointed out that the writ
petition by its nomenclature is one for police protection in which
the learned Single Judge has granted a declaration of exemption
thus frustrating the remedies available under the statute. It is
pointed out that the Pool workers were carrying on the loading
and unloading activities on the basis of an agreement entered into
with the petitioner which has been violated by the abrupt
stoppage to their engagement. Sri.V.P. Prasad, learned Counsel
appearing for the other respondent Unions points out that there is
not a single complaint raised by the petitioner regarding the work
carried on by the Pool members. It is argued that abrupt
termination of the agreement entered into with the workers puts
the workers life in peril and literally, they are on the streets
without any source of livelihood.
6. Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, takes us through Exts.P1, P2 and P3 to impress upon us
the pervasive control exerted by the Commissioner of Customs on
the activities carried on in the 3 rd respondent premises; which is
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
carried on as per the guidelines framed by the Commissioner. The
decision in Hindustan Latex Employees Welfare Society
(supra) considered the issue of loading and unloading carried out
by the Society, in premises which were also not owned by the
Company and were leased out by the Society. Even then the
Division Bench found that the establishment owned by the Central
Government and the activities carried on by the Society, cannot be
divorced from each other and there is a complete exemption from
the provisions of the Headload Workers Act. In answer to the
ground raised of earlier engagement of the Pool workers, it is
pointed out that the Division Bench specifically held that an
earlier engagement of Pool workers cannot result in a waiver of
the right of exemption available, for ever. Insofar as APM
Terminals India PVT. LTD (supra) is concerned, it is pointed
out that the issue of exemption was never argued before the
Division Bench which resulted in the Division Bench directing the
Unions to approach the competent authority. Smt.Ramola,
learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the
additional respondent impleaded in the appeal, adopted the
arguments of the petitioner. The additional respondent, the
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
Cochin Port Authority, was specifically impleaded, on our orders,
to ascertain the ownership of the land and the nature of
possession of such land by the 3rd respondent. This has been
clarified by way of an affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent
producing the lease deed between the additional respondent and
the 3rd respondent; Ext. R4(a). Learned Counsel would further
stress on the clear distinction and different definitions of the
terms, 'the employer' and 'the establishment' under the Headload
Workers Act. The establishments to which the Act is applicable
and the specific activity of loading and unloading work have been
referred to in the Schedule to the Act. Definitely the 4th respondent
establishment would come under item No.5 of the Schedule; if the
exemption was not available.
7. Exts.P1, P2 and P3 were extensively read over to us, with
reference to the statutory provisions. Ext.P1 is the notification
issued by the Commissioner of Customs under Section 8(b) of the
Customs Act, 1962. By the above provision, the Commissioner of
Customs is empowered to specify the limits of any 'customs area',
which term is defined under Section 2(11) as the area of a customs
station and includes any area in which imported goods or goods
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
for export are ordinarily kept before clearance by Customs
Authorities. By Ext.P1, the tabled area having an extent of 6.58
acres has been approved to be a proper place for storage of
containers, imported goods, de-stuffing of containers, customs
examination before clearance, storage examination and stuffing of
export cargo into containers and storage of import and export
transit containers; under Section 8(b). The boundaries and limits
of the land more fully described in the Table appended, has been
notified as a 'customs area'. Ext.P2 is yet another notification
brought out under Section 45 of the Customs Act which
specifically speaks of restrictions on custody and removal of
imported goods. As per sub-section (1) of Section 45, all imported
goods unloaded in a customs area are to be retained in the custody
of such person as may be approved by the Commissioner of
Customs until they are cleared for home consumption or are
warehoused or transshipped. Sub section (2) mandates that a
person having custody of any imported goods in a customs area,
should keep a record of such goods and send a copy thereof to the
proper officer; and is also prohibited from permitting removal or
otherwise dealing with such goods; other than in accordance with
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
the permission in writing from the proper officer. Sub section (3)
makes such person in charge of imported goods in a customs area,
liable to payment of duty if such goods are pilfered from their
custody. The rigor of the statutory provisions are further reflected
in clauses 4 6, 7 and 14 of Ext.P2. Clause 18 requires the
Custodian to bear the cost of Customs Officers on cost recovery
basis and clause 22 prohibits the Custodian from making any
manner of alienation of the premises of a Customs Area without
the written permission of the Commissioner of Customs. Ext.P3
details the procedure to be followed in respect of import, export
and transshipment of cargo and the movement of containers into
and out of the CFS, again issued by the Commissioner. At the
outset, Ext.P3 requires the Custodian to observe all Central
Government holidays and Sundays as followed in the Customs
House. Clause 16 requires any deviation of the procedures listed
out from clause 1 to 15 to be immediately brought to the notice of
higher authorities and further provides that the staff posted at the
CFS shall be under the direct control of the Assistant/Deputy
Commissioner (Docks/CFS). We are convinced that the
notification issued under Ext.P1 specifying the limits of the area
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
leased out by the 3rd respondent from the Port Authority as per
Ext.R4(a) for the purpose of the CFS, is notified as a customs area
and is under the all pervasive control of the customs authorities.
The notification which brought in the Headload Workers Act
makes the provisions of the Act applicable to the establishments
in the whole of the State of Kerala except those establishments
owned and controlled by the Central Government. We have found
that there is all pervasive control by the Customs Department on
the activities carried on by the 3 rd respondent in the premises
leased out from the Port authority, and monitored and supervised
by the Officers of the Customs.
8. Hindustan Latex Employees Welfare Society
(supra), is a case in which the Society had an agreement to carry
out secondary packaging of the company's products at various
places, taken on lease by the Society, as well as in the factory
premises. The writ petition was one filed for police protection for
reason of the obstruction caused by the headload workers in the
Scheme covered area. It was held that merely because the activity
was carried on by a Society it does not seize to be an activity of the
manufacturing establishment, under the control of the Central
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
Government. The exclusionary part of the notification, according
to the Division Bench, was with the object of freeing the activities
carried on in an establishment of the Central Government from
the trammels of the law of headload work, prevalent in the State of
Kerala. Their Lordships clearly noticed the distinctive terms of
'establishment' and 'employer', as defined in the statute, the
former of which term is used in the notification for the purpose of
exemption. The work done by the Society, of secondary packing,
was held to be part and parcel of the manufacturing unit, which
was admittedly owned by the Central Government. Their
Lordships also found the mere application for registration under
the Act or the Rules and the employment of the Pool workers in a
scheme area for some of its units, would not result in an absolute
waiver of the right to employ its own workers; as such a right arise
from the exemption permitted in the notification itself. In APM
Terminals India PVT. LTD (supra), the issue again was with
respect to an identical situation of a CFS having engaged Pool
workers, but abruptly stopped the practice and started employing
their own workers when obstructions were caused. The contention
raised in the above writ petition was that the area being a customs
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
bonded area, declared as a special economic zone, special rights
are available to the operators within the area and entry into such
area, even of the headload workers can only be with prior
permission. Their Lordships held that the petitioners would be
entitled to employ workers of their choice and even members of
the Pool so far as the permission exists. The Unions were also
permitted to avail the remedy under the competent authority
9. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
in APM Terminals India PVT. LTD (supra), the specific
exemption applicable was not urged before Court. Section 2(m)
defines a headload worker as a person employed directly or
indirectly through a contractor in an establishment; with specific
activities of loading and unloading. The definition of employer in
S.2(i) indicates three types of employment, under a Contractor
[sub-clause (i)], under the Committee [sub-clause (ii)] and under
the person who is in charge of an establishment [sub-clause (iii)].
The employer in cases of sub-clauses (i) and (iii), is the owner of
the establishment or one who has ultimate control of 'the
establishment'; the definition of which term has already been
noticed by us; quite distinct from that of 'the employer'. As far as
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
sub-clause (ii) is concerned, the employer is the Committee
appointed under S.18. The Explanation to the definition clause
further makes it clear that the headload worker for the purpose of
sub-clause (ii) is a person registered under the Scheme and paid
wages by the Committee; which has reference to the members of
the Pool constituted under the Scheme. The dispute resolution
measure of conciliation as provided under S.21 of the Act has
application only in disputes arising between the employer & the
employee or the employees & employees or between employers;
all with reference to the terms and conditions of employment. The
dispute that can be considered can also be between the employer,
the workers holding a valid registration under Rule 26A of the
Rules of 1981 and those Pool members who have a registration
under the Rule 6A of the Scheme of 1983. But, when there is an
exemption to an establishment which is either owned and
controlled by the Central Government there is no question of the
authorities under the Act having any jurisdiction to entertain a
complaint regarding the loading and unloading work carried on in
such notified area; which stands exempted.
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
10. The exemption is specifically granted to the
establishment and we need not go to the constitution or legal
status of the petitioner or the 3rd respondent. An establishment is
defined under the Headload Workers Act by S.2(j) as an
establishment specified in the Schedule and includes the precincts
thereof. The Schedule appended to the Act specifies the
establishments to which the Act is applicable. Though the activity
carried on within the precincts of CFS is one coming under item
No.5 of the Schedule, the exemption granted in the notification
makes the Act itself inapplicable to such establishment. The
establishment is defined as per the activities carried on within its
precincts, which in the present case is storage, stuffing, de-stuffing
and so on and so forth of goods either imported into the country
or to be exported out of the country, on which customs duty is
assessed, as payable or exempted; which activity is under the all
pervasive control of the Customs department. The CFS carried on
by the 3rd respondent, as a duly notified Custodian, is fully under
the control of the Customs department and the premises being
within a Scheme covered area does not alter the exemption
granted from the Headload Workers Act to the activities of the
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
establishment carried on within the precincts thereof. We bow to
the dictum in Hindustan Latex Employees Welfare Society
(supra) which we follow, to find exemption to the CFS area
notified as per Ext.P1, though carried on by the 3 rd respondent as
Custodian, to be exempted from the Headload Workers Act, Rules
and the Scheme, for reason of the all pervasive control exercised
by the customs authority over the entire activities including
loading and unloading activity. That the petitioner and 3 rd
respondent are private establishments earning profit out of their
commercial activities, does not permit a deviation insofar as the
in-applicability of the Headload Workers Act for the specific
activities of the establishment carried on in the area within its
precincts, notified as CFS under Section 8(b) of the Customs Act.
11. Even the petitioner admits that the Pool workers were
employed for the loading and unloading work for a very long
period. It is also pointed out that such engagement was in the
interest of smooth functioning of the business, which otherwise
was threatened to be obstructed by the Pool members who also
had political patronage. Over course of time the Pool members
became more belligerent and the complaints to the Committee
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
and the Board evoked no response and it was in utter frustration
that the petitioner resorted to engagement of their own workers,
asserting the right of the exemption available to the
establishments controlled by the Central Government. In
Hindustan Latex Employees Welfare Society (supra), it
was found that the engagement of pool workers or seeking
registration under the Act and Rules would not result in a waiver
of the rights accrued by virtue of the exemption. The Division
Bench, therein noticed that such engagement was only for a short
period, which in the present case was for over a decade. Even such
engagement for long duration would not result in any
crystallization of rights on the workers, who are members of the
Pool constituted under a Scheme, framed under the Act. The
exclusive right to carry out the loading and unloading work in a
scheme covered area in the establishments within such area, is a
statutory right which either exists or does not exist, on the terms
of the statute. When such right does not flow from the statute, the
mere practice of engaging Pool workers would not by that alone
crystallize into a right to those previously engaged.
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
12. We are also not impressed with the argument
addressed by the Unions that the learned Single Judge has
exceeded the jurisdiction to declare the Unions to have no right to
obstruct the loading and unloading activity carried on within the
premises of the 3rd respondent. We have already found that when
an establishment is exempted from the enactment, there is no
question of the authorities constituted under the enactment
having any power to resolve disputes arising within such
establishments. The writ petition though styled as one for police
protection, essentially seeks the issuance of mandamus to the
police, an authority under the State, who are obliged to act on the
complaint of illegal obstruction raised before them. A writ of
mandamus would only issue when there is an inaction on the part
of the authority, who are bound to act in accordance with law,
which inaction can only be found on the obstruction being
declared to be illegal. The petitioner stopped engaging the
members of the Pool under the Scheme for the loading and
unloading work carried on in the 3 rd respondent establishment
and employed their own workers. This resulted in the obstruction
to the loading and unloading work in the 3 rd respondent
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
establishment by the Pool members claiming a right under the
Headload Workers Act. When it is found that there is no right,
flowing from the statute, on the Pool workers to demand loading
and unloading work in the precincts of the 3 rd respondent's
establishment, controlled by the Central Government; necessarily
the consequence is a declaration that the obstruction is illegal
which is the foundation for the writ of mandamus issued to the
police to afford necessary police protection.
We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the judgment
of the learned Single Judge. We affirm the same and dismiss the
appeals.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
Mrcs xxx
WA 23 & 176 of 2023
APPENDIX OF WA 23/2023
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R4(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED
15.03.2011
Annexure R4(b) . A TRUE COPY OF THE HANDLING OF CARGO IN
CUSTOMS AREAS REGULATIONS, 2009, NOTIFIED
ON 17.03.2009, AND AS AMENDED
