MOZART GLOBAL FURNITURE Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: The first petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the marketing of furniture products. Second petitioner is the Branch Manager of Karunagppally Branch. The first petitioner has a show room at Kunnamkulam where there are three permanent workers exclusively engaged for loading and unloading activities. Ext.P3 series are copies of identity cards issued to the permanent workers under the Headload Workers Rules,1981. The workers belonging to the 2nd respondent are not permitting the petitioners to engage their permanent workers for doing loading and unloading work. The petitioners have right to engage their own permanent workers for loading and unloading the furniture products. The action of the 2nd respondent is illegal and unjustifiable. Even though petitioners have submitted ExtsP1 and P2 representations before the 3rd respondent and Ext.P4 complaint to respondents 1 and 4, the threat of the members of the 2nd respondent is subsisting. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) IT is also stated that there are 18 headload workers under the 2nd respondent union working in the area where the petitioners' shop at Karunagappally is situated. All these 18 workers under the 2nd respondent are registered under Rule 26 A (3) of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules and they were issued their respective identity cards also. From the very beginning of the shop, i.e. in July 2011, the local headload workers under the 2nd respondent have been doing the loading and unloading activities connected with the shop. There are no headload workers permanent or temporary or otherwise for the petitioner in that shop.