ALAVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner's son is working in UAE. He started a hollow bricks manufacturing unit. There is a lease agreement between the petitioner's son and the fourth respondent to whom the property originally belonged. Ext.P1 is the copy of the lease. Petitioner is conducting the business since his son is abroad, with all licence. Ext.P2 is the consent of the Pollution Control Board. Ext.P3 is the acknowledgment from the Department of Industries. Ext.P4 is the licence from the Panchayat and Ext.P5 is the consent letter given by the neighbours of the Panchayat and the unit is being conducted availing loan. The fourth respondent wanted to evict the petitioner and his son. The fifth respondent is the Secretary of the CITU. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and his employees are not in a position to conduct the unit on account of the threat by respondents 4 and 5. It is his further case that the fourth respondent created problems with the aid of the union leaders.

(3.) AS long as the petitioner does not have any permanent workers who are having registration under Rule 26A of the Head Load Workers Rules, he will be bound to abide by the provisions contained in the Head Load Workers Act and the Rules. But, we record the submission of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent that there will be no obstruction. If the petitioner makes any complaint alleging obstruction by members of the fifth respondent to the conduct of the business of the petitioner, before the third respondent, the third respondent will look into it and if it is found to be genuine, he will afford protection to the life of the petitioner and also for the purpose of conducting the business as against the members of the fifth respondent. We make it clear that under the guise of this order, petitioner is not to violate the provisions of the Head Load Workers Act and the Rules. As far as his complaint against the fourth respondent is concerned, we relegate the petitioner to approach the competent civil court. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.