YUNUS 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 petitioners are conducting a bed manufacturing unit under the name and style 'M/s.Yonus Beds'. The petitioners themselves are doing loading and unloading work in the unit. It is a small unit. It is alleged that the supporters of respondents 2 and 3 unions are obstructing the petitioners from doing loading and unloading work in the unit contending that they alone have the right to do the loading and unloading works in the unit. Hence, the petitioners has filed Ext.P2 representation before the 1st respondent seeking police protection. In Ext.P2, they alleged inter alia that they themselves are doing the loading and unloading works in the unit.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners themselves are doing the loading and unloading works in the unit. If the petitioners themselves are doing the loading and unloading works, respondents 2 and 3 have no right to obstruct the same. The respondents 2 and 3 have a case that there are workers in the unit for doing the loading and unloading works. The learned Government Pleader, on instruction, also submits that there are workers in the unit for doing the loading and unloading works. Under these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to afford police protection to the petitioners for doing the loading and unloading works in the unit of the petitioners as long as they themselves are doing the same. If they require further workers, necessarily, they must abide by the provisions of the Head Load Workers Act and Rules as and when required.