Arun R. vs. District Police Chief - Kerala High Court, 26 August 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THUR AY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 22574 OF 2020 PETITIONER/S: ARUN R. AGED 38 YEARS S/O. RAMACHANDRA MENON, MANAGING PARTNER, VISWAS NATURAL, VII/599 C, N.H VAYALAR JUNCTION, PATTANAKAD P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA 688 531. BY ADVS. MANU HARSHAKUMAR SRI. BINU SAM THOMAS SRI.SAMEER.P.A RESPONDENTS: 1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, CCSB ROAD, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 012. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATTANAKAD POLICE STATION, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA, 688 531. 3 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, GRADE II CHERTHALA, KODATHIKAVALA JUNCTION, CHERTHALA, 688 524. 4 HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (INTUC) PUTHIYAKAVU UNIT, PATTANAKAD P.O, 688 531, REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER. 5 HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU), PUTHIYAKAVU UNIT, PATTANAKAD P.O, 688 531, REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER. 6 HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (BMS) PUTHIYAKAVU UNIT, PATTANAKAD P.O, 688 531, REPRESENTED BY THE CONVER.

WPC No.22574 of 2020 (V) 2 7 HEADLOAD AND GENRAL WORKERS UNION (AITUC), PUTHIYAKAVU UNIT, PATTANAKAD P.O, 688 531, REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER. 8 HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (JSS), PUTHIYAKAVU UNIT, PATTANAKAD P.O 688 531, REPRESENTED BY THE CONVER. *ADDL.R9 THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 013. [*ADDL.R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05.08.2021 IN I.A.1/2021 IN WP(C)22574/2020.] BY ADV SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB SRI.E.C BINEESH, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC No.22574 of 2020 (V) 3

JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated to be the Managing Partner of a Firm by name “M/s.Viswas Natural”, stated to be engaged in the business of trading of marbles, granites, ceramic tiles etc.

The petitioner says that the Firm has permanent employees, who are engaged for the purpose of segregating and stacking the different types of marbles, granites, tiles etc., based on their variety, design and colour; and that, since the said articles are delicate in its nature, the same employees were trained to load and unload the same.

The petitioner alleges that even though the area where the Firm is carrying on its business is not one which comes within the ambit of the Scheme under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978, the respondents 4 to 8 are causing obstructions in allowing their employees to carry on the work of loading and unloading, asserting that they have an exclusive right to be paid for the said work.

The petitioner contends that the actions of respondents 4 to 8 are wholly illegal and that, the Firm was,

WPC No.22574 of 2020 (V) 4 therefore, constrained to approach respondent No.2 with Ext.P2 request seeking adequate and effective protection from the threats to their business and their employees from respondents 4 to 8. He, however, accuses that, the respondents have not initiated any action on Ext.P2, thus, constraining him to approach this Court.

I have heard Sri.Manu Harshakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 9th respondent.

Even though notices have been served validly on respondents 3 to 9 from this Court, there is no appearance on their behalf; thus, constraining me to dispose of this writ petition in their absence.

Sri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Government Pleader, affirmed that the area where the Firm of the petitioner is carrying on business, is not one within the Scheme under the Headload Workers Act, 1978; and thus added that if this Court directs necessary protection be afforded to the petitioner and his workmen for loading and unloading works relating to their

WPC No.22574 of 2020 (V) 5 business, the police authorities will take all necessary action.

Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel for the 9th respondent – Board also agreed that the area where the petitioner's Firm is conducting their business does not come within the purview of the Scheme under the Headload Workers Act, 1978; and therefore, prayed that no further orders be issued against his client.

I notice from the file that, on 05.08.2021, a learned Judge of this Court granted an interim order, directing respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection to the petitioner and his business. Since no contentions are raised against the same, by any of the party respondents today, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed; and I, consequently, direct respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that adequate and effective protection is made available to the petitioner, his business premises and his employees from any intimidation or threat from respondents 4 to 8 or their men; and to further ensure that law and order is maintained in the area without any breach in future. Needless to say, if any specific instances of threat

WPC No.22574 of 2020 (V) 6 or intimidation is hereinafter brought to the notice of respondents 1 and 2 by the petitioner, they will act swiftly to ensure that the same is dealt with as per law. This writ petition is thus ordered. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE ww

WPC No.22574 of 2020 (V) 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22574/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24-08- 2019 PETITION FILED BEFORE PATTANAKADU POLICE. EXHIBIT P2OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE PATTANAKADU POLICE STATION DATED 09- 10-2020. EXHIBIT P3OF THE RECEIPT OF PETITION FILED BEFORE PATTANAKKADU POLICE STATION DATED 09-10-2020. EXHIBIT P4 GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF “VISWAS NATURAL” ESTABLISHMENT MANAGED BY PETITIONER.