G.Sreekumar vs. Circle Inspector Of Police
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner says that he is running two businesses in hard wares and allied goods at Thiruvalla under the name and style 'S.J.Hard Wares' and 'S.J.Steels' from the year 1983. According to the petitioner, even though the area in question, where the businesses are located is not covered under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, respondents 2 and 3 are illegally claiming employment and are making untenable demands, which made him to approach the police authorities seeking protection.
As per the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 are under the influence of alcohol most of the time and that they behave very rudely to the customers and therefore, he is not in a position to engage them any further. This submission has been made after conceding that the petitioner had been engaging respondents 2 and 3 for the last many years, not on a permanent basis but as and when work was available and that it has now become impossible for him to engage respondents 2 and 3 continuously for the reasons afore.
The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submits, contrary to the allegations of the petitioner, that the respondents have been engaged by the petitioner for the last several years on a continuous basis and that they are still engaged as and when work is available. According to him, the attempt of the petitioner in approaching this Court with this writ petition is to deny them their legitimate employment and he prays that no orders be issued in this writ petition as prayed for by the petitioner.
The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent submits that the issues between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are squarely in the realm of labour law and that, normally the police will not interfere in such disputes. He, however, says that if these disputes deteriorate into law and order issues, the police will certainly step in and take all necessary action.
Taking note of the submissions of the learned Senior government Pleader as also the conceded position that the area in question is not a scheme covered area, we fail to understand how respondents 2 and 3 can take law into their hands, if the allegations against them are true, in causing obstruction to the petitioner's businesses. If they have a claim of legitimate employment under the petitioner, it will certainly be open to them to approach the competent Labour Authority with a prayer for such adjudication and we are certain that they will have full liberty to do so, notwithstanding the allegations made against them by the petitioner in this writ petition. In the afore circumstances, we order this writ petition and direct the first respondent to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner to carry on his businesses from any threat or intimation from respondents 2 and 3 and to ensure that law and order is maintained. Certainly, respondents 2 and 3 will have complete liberty to approach the competent Labour Authority to raise a dispute, either regarding denial of employment to them or to assert that they have the right to be continually employed by the petitioner, unhampered by this judgment. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE GST CERTIFICATE DATED 17.7.2018 RELATING TO S.J.HARDWARE. EXHIBIT P2OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.9.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. // P.S. TO JUDGE
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.