Kerala High Court
M/S V Trans (India) Limited vs Inspector Of Police on 3 April, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 12005 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
M/S V TRANS (INDIA) LIMITED,
(CIN: U60210MH1990PLC054883) BUILDING NO.11/138-B, NEAR
KOODEKAVU TEMPLE, KUTTIKKATTUKARA, ALUPURAM, ELOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER MR.
SHAMSUDHEEN C P., PIN - 683501
BY ADV K.K.ASHKAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELOOR POLICE STATION, KOCHI CITY
POLICE, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683501
2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ERNAKULAM SUBDIVISION, KOCHI CITY RURAL POLICE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOCHI CITY POLICE,REVENUE TOWER,
PARK AVENUE ROAD, MAIN BOAT JETTY, KOCHI-, PIN - 682011
4 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION, NORTH
PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 683513
5 NETHEESH, AGED 39 YEARS, POOVATHUMPARAMPIL HOUSE, ELOOR
EAST, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683501
6 SABU ANTONY, AGED 50 YEARS, VADASSERY HOUSE,
KUTTIKKATTUKARA, KUTTIKKATTUAKARA, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT- 683501
7 LOYIED, AGED 54 YEARS, MADATHIPARAMPIL, KUTTIKKATTUKARA
P.O, KUTTIKKATTUAKARA, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-
683501
SRI PM SHAMEER-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 12005 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be a company engaged in
"logistics business" and that they are operating on the strength
of Ext.P1 licence issued from the jurisdictional Local Self
Government Institution. They say that, even though they are
continuing their activities legally, respondents 5 to 7 trespassed
into their "Warehouse" and obstructed their operations,
intimidating their workers and threatening them that they will
be done away with, if they continued the work. They allege that
respondents 5 to 7 are not registered head load workers and
hence that they are entitled to engage their own, particularly
when the area in question is not notified under the provisions of
the Kerala Headload Workers Act. They submit that since the
threat from respondents 5 to 7 is continuing, they were
constrained to approach the first respondent through Ext.P3, but
that no action has been taken thereon, thus forcing them to
approach this Court through this writ petition.
2. Sri.Ashkar K.K. - learned counsel for the petitioner,
expatiated the contentions of his client, explaining that they
have, in fact, moved Ext.P2 series of applications for registration
of their own workers and that the same is still pending in the
WP(C) NO. 12005 OF 2024
office of the fourth respondent. He submitted that, for this
reason also, his client is entitled to protection as sought for.
3. I notice from the file that, service of summons from this
Court has been validly completed on respondents 5 to 7.
However, 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 opposition to the
various reliefs sought for in this writ petition.
4. Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader,
submitted that the first respondent has taken note of the
complaint of the petitioner and is offering necessary protection,
as and when required. He submitted that, as long as
respondents 5 to 7 are not registered head load workers, the
petitioner can use their own workers, however, subject to any
further orders to be issued by the competent Labour Authorities.
5. I have no doubt that the afore submission of the learned
Government Pleader is a most apposite in the given
circumstances.
6. In the afore scenario, I allow this writ petition and direct
the first respondent to ensure that necessary and sufficient
WP(C) NO. 12005 OF 2024
protection is offered to the petitioner and to their permanent
workers from any let or hindrance from any person, including
respondents 5 to 7; and that this shall be maintained on a
continual basis, or as and when requested.
7. Needless to say, the fourth respondent or such other
competent Authority will consider Ext.P2 series applications of
the workers of the petitioner and issue appropriate orders
thereon, after following due procedure, without any avoidable
delay.
That said, even though the party respondents have refused
to appear before this Court, I deem it appropriate to clarify that
their rights, if any, under the applicable statutes and law are left
open; however, that they shall not take law into their own hands
in any manner whatsoever.
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 12005 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12005/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IFTE & OS LICENSE ISSUED
BY ELOOR MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit -P2 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR HEALOAD
WORKER REGISTRATION SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEE PURNACHANDRA GIRI
DATED 08.02.2024
Exhibit -P2 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR HEALOAD
WORKER REGISTRATION SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEE DIBYENDU BERA DATED
08.02.2024
Exhibit-P2 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR HEALOAD
WORKER REGISTRATION SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEE RAJEN PRAMANIK DATED
08.02.2024
Exhibit -P2 (d) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR HEALOAD
WORKER REGISTRATION SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEE BIJOY MUCHAHARY
DATED 08.02.2024
Exhibit-P2 (e) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR HEALOAD
WORKER REGISTRATION SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEE KHOKAN JANA DATED
08.02.2024
Exhibit P2 (f) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR HEALOAD
WORKER REGISTRATION SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEE SUNIL MIRDHA DATED
08.02.2024
Exhibit-P3 OFFICE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINAT DATED
07.03.2024 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
08.03.2024
