Kerala High Court
Apco Associates vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 14 July, 2011
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18008 of 2011(A)
1. APCO ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KAYATTIRAKKU
3. BIJU P., S/O.NARAYANAN, PATHIRIKKADU
4. KABEER M., S/O.BEERAN KOYA,
5. SHOUKKATH @ SHOUKKATHALI K.T.,
6. MOIDEEN KOYA P., S/O.KHADAR,
7. BIJU M., S/O.BEERAN KOYA,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.N.NAGARESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :14/07/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 18008 OF 2011
------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011
JUDGMENT
Abdul Rehim, J.
Petitioner is engaged in the distribution of home appliances, electronic goods and automotive batteries, manufactured by M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd., Panasonic India Private Ltd., IGO Marketing, Sharp Business Systems and Tata Auto Comp batteries. The petitioner was holding godown situated at Kallai Road, Kozhikode, which he had taken on lease. Recently, the petitioner has to vacate the said premises and he had taken another godown near Cheruvannur, by virtue of Ext.P1 lease agreement. According to the petitioner, he is engaging his own permanent workers for doing loading and unloading works in the said godown and two of his workers have already been registered as permanently attached headload workers under the provisions of Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules. But the respondents 2 to 7 are causing obstruction to the work being carried out by engaging WPC.No.18008/2011 2 the registered workers. Hence, the petitioner submitted Exts.P3 and P4 to the first respondent seeking to afford adequate protection. Since no action has been taken by the first respondent, this writ petition is filed.
2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 7, it is stated that respondents 3 to 7 and 5 other registered headload workers are doing all the loading and unloading works in the Madura Bazar area at Chervannur. According to the respondents, they are doing loading and unloading works of the petitioner when the goods were stocked in the previous gododwn situated at Kallai road, Kozhikode. It is contended that under the guise of Ext.P2 registration obtained in the name of two persons, now the petitioner is denying employment to the respondents and other workers having registration in the area. According to the respondents 2 to 7, the persons with respect to whom the registration was obtained under Ext.P2 are not real workers of the petitioner and such a registration was obtained only with a view to deny employment to respondents 2 to 7 and other persons having registration in the area. However, it is conceded that against Ext.P2, the 2nd WPC.No.18008/2011 3 respondent had submitted an appeal before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode as contemplated under Rule 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules and the same is pending disposal.
3. Having considered the rival contentions, we notice that as long as the petitioner has got his own permanent workers having registration under Rule 26A, they are entitled to do the loading and unloading works. In such a situation, the respondents 2 to 7 have no manner of right to create any physical obstructions for the loading and unloading works being carried out by the petitioner. If any such obstruction is caused, the first respondent is bound to take action for removal of such obstructions and to afford protection for the petitioner to carry our the work of loading and unloading with the registered workers of his establishment.
4. We make it clear that the respondents 2 to 7 will be at liberty to pursue appropriate statutory remedy against the registration granted under Ext.P2 and if the registration is cancelled by any competent authority, then the petitioner will be at obligation to engage registered workers for carrying out WPC.No.18008/2011 4 loading and unloading works, since the area in question being one covered under the scheme formulated under the Headload Workers Act.
5. It is also made clear that if the petitioner requires any extra workers other than those registered under Ext.P2, he shall employ workers having registration under Rule 26A in the area in question.
The writ petition is disposed of subject to the direction and observations contained herein above.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk