Saphire Engineers vs The Circle Inspector Of Police And Other
2024 Latest Caselaw 8771 Ker

Kerala High Court

Saphire Engineers vs The Circle Inspector Of Police And Other on 27 March, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024/7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                      WP(C) NO. 36026 OF 2010
PETITIONER:
           SAPHIRE ENGINEERS
           KANALPIRIVU, PAMPAMPALLOM P.O.,
           WALAYAR,, PALAKKAD - 678521,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.

          BY ADV SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM


RESPONDENTS:
     1     THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
           KASABA, PUTHUSSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

    2     THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE WALAYAR
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

    3     DRAVYA YESU, S/O.ANTHONY SWAMY
          KANALPIRIVU, PAMPAMPALLAM P.O.,
          PALAKKAD, KERALA - 678 621.

    4     UDAYAN, HEAD LOAD WORKER
          KANALPIRIVU, PAMPAMPALLAM P.O.,
          PALAKKAD, KERALA - 678 621.

    5     FRANCIS, HEAD LOAD WORKER
          KANALPIRIVU, PAMPAMPALLAM P.O.,
          PALAKKAD, KERALA - 678 621.

    6     RAVI CHANDRAN, HEAD LOAD WORKER
          KANALPIRIVU, PAMPAMPALLAM P.O.,
          PALAKKAD, KERALA - 678 621.

    7     STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
          GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.BINOY DAVIS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
          SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 36026 OF 2010
                                        2



                                JUDGMENT

This writ petition was filed seeking police protection in the

year 2010 seeking the following reliefs:

"i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and

2 to provide sufficient police protection for the petitioner and the vehicles to the bring the materials for hot dipping to the factory of the petitioner and to transport the same after hot dipping to the various depots of Kerala State Electricity Board for the purpose of using the materials for the transmission and distribution lines.

ii) Issue a writ declaring that as the petitioner is having permanent and regular employees of loading and unloading, the respondents 3 to 6 and their associates have no legal right to claim the work related to loading and unloading and to prevent the free movement of the vehicles while bringing materials to the factory and taking finished products from the factory for delivery at the depots as required for the Kerala State Electricity Board.

iii) Issue a writ in the nature of declaration that the compulsion to employee the head load workers who are registered under the Kerala Head load Workers Act and the scheme in a factory where the employer has his own workers whose services can be utilized for the loading and unloading as incidental and ancillary to work of the establishment or otherwise is against the fundamental rights of an employer and therefore the said compulsion is unconstitutional.

iv) Issue a writ declaring that a factory or an establishment wherein the rights of employees are protected by virtue of the welfare registration such as ESI, PF, minimum wages etc. such establishments will not become or constitute establishments as contemplated under section 2(j) and the schedule mentioned therein and therefore all establishments in which the provisions of other enactments are applicable are outside the purview of the Kerala Head load Workers Act and the WP(C) NO. 36026 OF 2010

scheme made thereunder and any such compulsion is unenforceable and against the fundamental rights of a citizen.

v) Pass such other order or direction as this Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. It is obvious that with the passage of time, the reliefs

sought for in this writ petition need not be considered on merits. It

is made clear that all contentions raised by the petitioner are left

open and it is also made clear that if the petitioner has any

subsisting grievance, he may approach this Court by filing a fresh

writ petition.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

nkr WP(C) NO. 36026 OF 2010

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36026/2010

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 19.09.2010

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.CECCN/MF2/DB/25/2008-09 DATED 18.12.2009

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.CECCN/MF2/DB/25/2008-09/402 DATED 13.06.2010

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.CECCN/MF2/DB/25/08-09/1702 DATED 26.11.2010

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 19.11.2010