E K MAMMADKOYA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the Proprietor of Eyyankandi Cements and Steels, doing the business of sale of cement and steel. Petitioner has got seven permanent workers registered under the Kerala Head Load Workers' Act. The workers of the fourth respondent union have no right to obstruct the loading and unloading of cement and steel being carried on by the petitioner's own permanent registered workers. However, there was obstruction. Petitioner filed complaint. Ext.P1 is the FIR registered by the third respondent. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation and is before us.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the Writ Petition as follows: There will be a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to give police protection to the petitioner as against any obstruction created by the members of the fourth respondent union to the loading and unloading works being carried out by the petitioner's workers having registration under Rule 26A of the Head Load Workers Rules. We make it clear that this Judgment will not stand in the way of the appellate authority or any other statutory authority considering the grievance of the party respondent or any members of the party respondent in a duly constituted proceeding. Every effort will be made by the appellate authority before which the Appeal is said to be pending, to dispose of the Appeal at the earliest, in accordance with law, with full opportunity to the parties.