Shiju P.S. vs. The Sub Inspector Of Police
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner claims to the Proprietor of a business by name 'Dhanalakshmi Traders' at Cheruvyppu, within the juri iction of the Njarakkal Police Station. His allegation is that even though he has permanent workers on his rolls, respondents 3 and 4, who are the Conveners of registered Trade Unions in the area, are obstructing him and his own workers in carrying on the loading and unloading works and he says that this is illegal. On such allegations, the petitioner prays that the first respondent be directed to afford them effective protection from the obstruction caused by respondents 3 and 4. 2. We have heard Sri.B.Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Sri.Prasad, learned counsel for the second respondent, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. 3. We notice that even though the learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the area in question is a scheme covered area, his contention is that the petitioner still has a right to employ his own workers. This contention is sought to be bolstered by two broad legal assertions. The first is that the work of unloading and unloading of articles in the business of steel pipes and roofing sheets are incidental to the main work and the second is that since he has permanent workers who are specialised in the loading and unloading of these articles, he is not liable to requisition personnel from the pool of workers maintained under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act ('the Act' for brevity).
The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent vehemently asserts that the area in question is a scheme covered area and submits that the work, namely loading and unloading of steel pipes and roofing sheets, is not a specialised one that would obtain to the petitioner the benefit under Section 9A of the Act. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner cannot employ his own workers, unless such workers are registered under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules and asserts that the pleading do not show any such worker having obtained registration.
The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 adopts the afore submissions made on behalf of the second respondent and reiterates that since the area in question is a scheme covered area and since the loading and unloading of the articles are routine in a business of this nature, the petitioner cannot get the benefit of Section 9A of the Act, so as to deny employment to the workers in the pool. The learned counsel is vehement in his submission that the petitioner has been using the services of the workers in the pool in the past and he says that, in fact, some payments were defaulted, which has now prompted the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
The learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing on instructions from the first respondent, submits that the disputes between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are completely in the realm of labour law and that normally the police would not be justified in interfering with the same. He, however, says that conciliation talks were attempted between the warring sides but that it has not yielded any result.
On a consideration of the above submissions, we are convinced that the area being a scheme covered one, the petitioner would obtain the right to employ his own workers only if such workers are registered under Rule 26A of the Rules or if the petitioner is able to establish that the work involved is one that obtains the benefit under Section 9A of the Act.
We are afraid that on both these counts our conclusions are against the petitioner because the loading and unloading of steel pipes and roofing sheets can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be a specialised work, thus obtaining to the petitioner the benefit under Section 9A of the Act. That being so, since the petitioner concedes that he does not have registered workers, he would have to tap into the pool maintained under the Act if he has to do the loading and unloading work in this business.
The only other contention that the petitioner raises in substantiation of his assertion that he is entitled to use his own workers is that the work in question is only incidental to the main work. Prima facie, this is one issue that we are constrained to find against the petitioner, however, we deem it appropriate not to conclude upon it affirmatively since the petitioner says that he may be permitted to invoke the alternative statutory remedy for this purpose. In the afore circumstances, we order this writ petition without granting the reliefs as has been prayed for by the petitioner, however, giving him liberty to approach the competent authority to raise all his contentions and seek an adjudication as to the nature of the work involved. Any such adjudication and final order to be issued by the competent authority will be adhered to by him, subject to his rights against it if it is to his detriment and until then, the petitioner shall engage the workers from the pool maintained under the Act. Consequently, the second respondent, on such a request being made by the petitioner, will depute sufficient number of workers at the rates as are sanctioned in law and ensure that the petitioner is able to pursue his loading and unloading activities without any let or hindrance from respondents 3 and 4. Needless to say, the petitioner, if he is so interested, may apply appropriately before the competent authority for registration of his permanent workers under Rule 26A of the Rules, but until such registration is obtained, he would be obligated to use the services of the workers in the pool as directed above. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE D & O LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE EDAVANAKKAD PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P2OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S CONCERN UNDER THE KERALA SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 1960. EXHIBIT P3OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE GST ACT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE WORK CARD DATED 02.07.2018. EXHIBIT P5OF THE WORK CARD DATED 28.07.2018. EXHIBIT P6OF THE WORK CARD DATED 06.08.2018. EXHIBIT P7OF THE PETITION DATED 21.09.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 22.09.2018. // 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.