Kerala High Court
K.K.Shamsudheen vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 21 October, 2010
Author: K.M. Joseph
Bench: K.M.Joseph, M.C.Hari Rani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30056 of 2010(F)
1. K.K.SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O.MOIDEEN KOYA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT HEADLOAD & GENERAL WORKERS
3. MUTHIRAKKATHARAMMEL ABDU SAMAD,
4. KUNNUMMEL SHAJI,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.JACOB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :21/10/2010
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH &
M. C. HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO. 30056 OF 2010 F
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st October, 2010.
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to grant adequate police protection for loading and unloading of goods which are brought into the compound wall of the business firms, Mayur Enterprises and Prime Communications situated in Buildings Nos.6/460 A to H, 6/456, 457, 460 E, F, G, H and 13/471 (14/353), Puthur, pavangad, Puthiyangadi PO, Kozhikode District by engaging the registered workers of the petitioner;
ii) Declare that going by the relevant provisions of law, the petitioner's business firms can have their own registered workers for loading and unloading of goods within the compound walls of their business WP(C).NO.30056 OF 2010 F 2 firms and either the 2nd respondent or respondents 3 and 4 or any member of the 2nd respondent Union has no right in law to object to the same."
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Mayur Enterprises and one of the active Partners of M/s. Prime Communications. In respect of M/s. Mayur Enterprises, even though it is mentioned in the Writ Petition that it is a scheme covered area, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that it is a mistake and it is not so. Anyway, it is not relevant, since the case of the petitioner is based on the existence of workers who have identity cards issued under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers' Act (Exts.P2 and P3). Petitioner is also one of the seven Partners of a Firm and in respect of the the said Firm, it has got two workers who are having Exts.P4 and P5 Identity Cards issued. Petitioner is being obstructed by the party respondents. Petitioner filed Ext.P6 complaint and not getting any response, he has approached this Court.
3. We have already passed an interim order dated 6.10.2010. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned WP(C).NO.30056 OF 2010 F 3 counsel appearing on behalf of the party respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the party respondents points out that under the guise of the interim order, petitioner is carrying on loading and unloading work with the workers who are not having registration, that is to say, persons other than holders of Exts.P2 to P5 are doing loading and unloading work.
5. The Writ Petition is disposed of by making the interim order absolute. We, however, make it clear that police protection will not extend to carrying out of the work of loading and unloading through the help of any one other than persons having Exts.P2 to P5. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE kbk.
//True copy// PS to Judge WP(C).NO.30056 OF 2010 F 4