Stone And Rock vs. C.I.T.U Pool No.0/14
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 29TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 34551 OF 2019 PETITIONER: M/S STONE AND ROCK, BYE PASS JUNCTION, SANTHOSH NAGAR, MANNUTHI, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MUHAMMED JEELI, S/O.EASA RAWTHER, AGED 51 YEARS. BY ADV P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENTS: 1 C.I.T.U POOL NO.0/14, 217/83, MANNUTHI P.O., PIN-680 651, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JOHNY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 2 JOHNY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PRESIDENT, C.I.T.U. POOL NO.0/14, 217/83, MANNUTHI P.O., PIN-680 651, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3 PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 42, UNION LABOUR, C.I.T.U. POOL NO.0/14, 217/83, MANNUTHI P.O., PIN-680 651, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNUTHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 651. 5 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR-680 022. 6 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 009. 7 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER(ALO), THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 020. *8 KERALA STATE HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD THRISSUR DISTRICT COMMITTEE, THRISSUR 680 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON
WPC 34551/19 2 (ADDL.R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.12.19 IN I.A NO.1/19 IN W.P.(C) 34551/19) BY ADVS SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB SRI.E.C.BINEESH (GP) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 34551/19 3 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated to be a Firm engaged in the business of processing and sale of stones, under the name and style 'M/s Stone and Rock' at Mannuthi. They say that the predominant activity in their business is the sale of stones and that loading and unloading is only incidental therein.
The petitioner says that, therefore, the same will not fall within any of the enumerated categories of the second schedule to the Kerala Headload Workers Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short); but that, in spite of this, respondents 1 to 3 are causing continuous obstruction to their activities, thus having forced them to approach the 4th respondent – Sub Inspector of Police, through Ext.P8 request, seeking protection. They allege that no action has been taken on Ext.P8; and consequently, that they have been constrained to approach this Court
WPC 34551/19 4 seeking necessary orders to the said respondent.
Sri.E.C.Bineesh – learned Government Pleader, submitted that a report has been placed on record by the juri ictional Assistant Labour Officer, as ordered by this Court, along with a memo dated 13.09.2021, wherein, he has affirmed that the predominant work of the petitioner is sale of granite and pebble stones, while loading and unloading are only incidental in nature. He then added that the Police Authorities have taken necessary action in terms of the earlier interim order of this Court and that law and order is thus maintained in the area in question. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be ordered on such terms.
I find from the files that, though summons from this Court have been validly served on respondents 1 to 3, they have chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; thus inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in
WPC 34551/19 5 answer to the various averments made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.
Sri.S.Krishna Moorthy – learned Standing Counsel for the 8th respondent, submitted that the area where the petitioner is engaged in their activity is covered by a Scheme under the provisions of the Act. He added that the petitioner themselves have applied for statutory cards under Section 26A of the Act for their employees and that this establishes that they are aware that their loading and unloading activities can only be done by the registered workers. He submitted that the applications made by the petitioner's employees are still pending; and therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be not allowed.
In reply, Sri.P.M.Ziraj – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client had made applications under Section 26A of the Act only by way of abundant caution and that this is of no consequence because, as clearly stated by
WPC 34551/19 6 the Assistant Labour Officer, the predominant activity in his establishment is sale of granite and not loading and unloading.
Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties as afore, I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the submissions of Sri.S.Krishna Moorthy because the Assistant Labour Officer has filed his report clearly affirming that 'the predominant work of the establishment is sale of granite and pebble stones. The nature of loading & unloading activity in the establishment occurs once or twice a month, which is purely incidental in nature'
(sic).
Obviously,
therefore, respondents 1 to 3 cannot seek any statutory right to be engaged in the activity of loading and unloading, when it is only incidental in nature.
That apart, it is clear from the absence of respondents 1 to 3 in this Court would demonstrate that they are also aware of the situation and that they cannot seek any exclusive right to be engaged in the loading and unloading
WPC 34551/19 7 activities in the establishment of the petitioner. In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and direct the 4th respondent to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner's employees, for the purpose of carrying out their business activities, without any let or hindrance from any person, including respondents 1 to 3. Needless to say, the 4th respondent will also ensure that law and order is maintained in the area in question and that no breach of peace is allowed by any person, including respondents 1 to 3. RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
WPC 34551/19 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34551/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE THRISSUR CORPORATION DATED 26.11.2019. EXHIBIT P2OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF GST OF PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P3OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2019 IN WOC NO.30889/2019. EXHIBIT P4OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER MR.AMAR PRADHAN. EXHIBIT P5OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER MR.HEMANTA PRADHAN. EXHIBIT P6OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER MR.SUMESH. EXHIBIT P7OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER MR.ABDUL RIYAS. EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO FIFTH AND SIXTH RESPONDENTS.OF THE UDYAM REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 06.11.2020 BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, TRISSUR
WPC 34551/19 9
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.