A.BALAKRISHNAN Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a businessman and is engaged in the sale of electronic and electrical home appliances. He has approached this Court complaining of inaction on the part of the Police in extending protection to him from the obstructions caused by respondents 3 and 4 in running the above business in a legal manner.

(2.) The petitioner states that he is running a retail business in the name and style as 'Good Morning Enterprises' and his distribution business as 'Sree Lakshmi Distributors'. The items dealt with by him are Televisions, Fridges, Air Conditioners, Washing Machines, Microwave Ovens, Water Purifiers, Food Processors and other home appliances. For the purpose of storing the goods, he has taken on lease Building No.46/784 of Alappuzha Municipal Corporation. He states that he has engaged skilled persons to handle the goods. He further states that the home appliances dealt with by the petitioner contains electronic circuit boards and complex circuitry and if those expensive equipment are mishandled or dropped by workers with no training, the petitioner is likely to sustain insurmountable loss. He has given the names of three workers who are permanently attached to Sreelakshmi Distributors and three workers who are permanently attached to Good Morning Enterprises. Exhibits P7 and P8 are the Muster Roll of the workers maintained by the petitioner. These workers are made accountable for the manner in which they handle the expensive appliances inside the establishment and when the same is delivered and installed in the homes of their customers. He also points out that the manufacturer has also given clear guidelines about the manner by which the appliances are to be handled and reference is made to Exhibit P5 series handling instructions. He states that when he was informed by the official respondents that his workers require registration as headload workers, they have approached the labour officer concerned for procuring cards under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules, 1981 and the same is pending.

(3.) The petitioner states that the headload workers under the leadership of the respondents 3 and 4 obstructed the work on the premise that they alone are entitled to work in the area and that the petitioner cannot entrust the work with his workers. In the said circumstances, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and requested that he be afforded protection to carry on his business without any obstruction or hindrance. His grievance is that no assistance was rendered which had led him to approach this Court.