MANNARKAD TALUK HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU) MANNARKAD Vs. CHAIRPERSON KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD MANNARKAD LOCAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE in brief is as follows: Petitioner is the proprietor of a dealer in steel in Mannarkad. There is loading and unloading work. Petitioners have obtained card. There are five such workers. There are other workers doing other works but not engaged as head load workers. There is reference to earlier writ petition as WP(C) No.26247 of 1998. Ext.P1 is the order passed thereon. It was affirmed by the judgment, which is produced as Ext.P2. It is stated that respondents 1 to 3 thereafter had not created any difficulty for his workers. Respondents 1 to 3 and members of their organization started obstruction from carrying out the loading and unloading work within the compound. Petitioner filed Ext.P5 complaint before the 6th respondent. Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit. Inter alia it is stated as follows: Bharath Steel House is situated in a compound wherein there are two other establishments by name Kairali Cement Works and Karunakarth Hollow Bricks. The aforesaid three establishments are all within the area of operation of pools mentioned therein. Petitioner obtained Ext.P2 judgment. On the basis of that he should have engaged registered workers. It is only after 13 years of Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner took steps to get his workers registered under the Act and the Rules. The petitioners in WP(C) 5006 of 2012 has not submitted any application. A complaint Ext. R3(b) was filed before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance. Ext.R3(c) purports to be, a newspaper report showing there were complaints of demanding illegal gratification against the Assistant Labour Officer, Mannarkkad and that he has been arrested by the vigilance on the basis of surprise raid. The petitioner filed reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit, petitioner had produced Exts.P6 to P10 which purports to be registered cards issued in favour of the workers. The prayer in this Writ Petition is as follows:

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the party respondents in WP(C) No.10997 of 2012 would submit that the petitioner had obtained Ext.P2 judgment 13 years back and thereafter Ext.R3(a) is the judgment obtained by five persons of whom four are migrant workers from Jharkhand State. They have not submitted any application for registration before any institution and Exts.P6 to P10 are obtained by others. There is something suspicious having regard to the newspaper cutting also. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner on the other hand would submit that in fact there was an appeal and the appeal itself was disposed of by confirming the order of the registration authority. Therefore, the present position is that there is issue of registration in respect of the workers covered by Exts.P6 to P10. This court is therefore, inclined to give police protection confined only to the unit of the petitioner, namely, Bharath Steel. The learned senior counsel has no objection in this regard to the same. We have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned counsel for the Board also submits that protection may be confined to the unit of the petitioner, namely, Bharat Steel.