ANSAR K.B. Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the proprietor of a business concern dealing with stock and sale of rubber sheets. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection for carrying out the business activities of the establishment without interference from the third respondent. The third respondent claims right to do the loading and unloading works in the establishment, for which they have no right, is the grievance.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel on either side and also perused the rival pleadings.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the area in question is not a scheme covered area. It is the further contention that, the petitioner has own permanent workers and that the work of loading and unloading of goods is not their predominant work but is only incidental. Unless the work of loading and unloading, for which the worker is employed, is of a permanent nature, the question of registration under Rule 26A and of employing pool workers does not arise at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in Theresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police, Thoppumpady and Ors. 2015 (1) KLT 485.