S S DISTRIBUTORS Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 5 - all police officials under the 6th respondent/State, to afford protection to the petitioner against the culpable and violent obstruction of the work in the petitioner's establishment caused by the 7th respondent.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he runs a small scale proprietary business activity of distribution of mineral water. Packaged mineral water is carried in vehicles and the same is delivered. ACCORDING to the petitioner, he and the driver of his alone attend to this work. No other employee is employed. The driver is not principally employed in the work of loading and unloading. He is only an incidental employee for such work. The petitioner some time affords assistance to his driver. No one other than the petitioner and his driver do such work of loading and unloading. The area in question is admittedly a scheme covered area. The petitioner's driver admittedly has not obtained registration as an attached permanent worker of the petitioner under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act. ACCORDING to the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner is not employing any head load workers and the driver of the petitioner is only doing the work of unloading incidentally, the petitioner is not bound to take registration for such driver as a loading and unloading worker. Consequently the 7th respondent is not entitled to claim that members of the union - registered head load workers, must be engaged by the petitioner, it is submitted.

(3.) WE have considered all the relevant inputs. WE take particular note of the fact that the 7th respondent has not entered appearance and resisted the prayer in the petition. WE find merit in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the 9th respondent that the question whether the work is incidental or not must rightly be resolved by the authorities under Section 21 of the Act. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that until such dispute is resolved by the machinery provided under Section 21, appropriate directions can be issued in favour of the petitioner particularly in view of the fact that the 7th respondent has not chosen to appear and resist the prayer for police protection.