POPULAR PLAZA Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows. The writ petition is filed seeking police protection for carrying out the loading and unloading work in the petitioner's establishment. Respondents 4 and 5 and their supporters, who are engaged for loading and unloading of heavy goods coming and leaving the establishment are causing obstructions on the ground that even handling of goods inside the establishment are to be done by them. The demand made by respondents 4 and 5 is against Ext.P1 decision of the 2nd respondent Board. This Honourable Court had issued Ext.P2 order granting interim protection, which had been made absolute in Ext.P3 judgment. Despite Exts.P1 to P3, the respondents 4 and 5 are causing obstruction and the petitioner's complaints before the 1st respondent Police Officer and 2nd respondent Board are not being acted upon. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) THE Headload Board, after conducting an enquiry had categorically held that respondents 4 and 5 can claim work only in respect of the major loading and unloading works outside the establishment. As far as repacking and selling the items in retail is concerned, the same can be done by the workers in the shop. Though a decision in this regard had been taken as early as on 19.8.2004, the Headload workers had staked another claim in April, 2005. The board had reiterated their earlier decision and the same had been communicated to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 by an order dated 22.4.2005. A true copy of the order dated 22.4.2005 issued by the Headload Board is produced herewith and marked as Ext.P1. There is reference to Writ Petition(C) No.17174/2005. Ext.P2 is the interim order followed by Ext.P3 judgment. Respondents 4 and 5 thereafter raised the claim of loading. The petitioner filed complaint and is before us.