TIMBER MERCHANT ASSOCIATION Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner is a registered association of persons engaged in the business of cutting, removing, transporting and selling timber. Second petitioner is the Secretary of the said organisation and petitioners 3 to 15 are its members. It is submitted that the petitioners are carrying on timber business in various places.

(2.) It is inter alia contended that now loading work of timber is being done by cranes and other mechanical devices and manual loading work is rarely used. Human labour is also required for tying the timber logs with ropes to the crane for being carried to and from the lorries and untying the same. In the process, skilled workers used to assist the loading as well as unloading activities. It is contended that respondents 4 to 29 are headload workers operating in Pala Assembly Constituency. Respondents 30 and 31 are trade unions of labourers of the locality. The petitioners complain about the illegal demand of respondents 4 to 31 for 'Nokkukooli', since the petitioners are using cranes for the loading and unloading work. It is contended that the area where the petitioners carry on business is not a scheme covered area. That apart, none of the respondents have been registered under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules. Since there had been substantial obstruction and several crimes had been registered by the Police, on account of unlawful obstruction being created by the party respondents and their men against the petitioners, complaints had been filed before the Police seeking police protection for carrying on their loading and unloading work of timber in the respective areas. Since the Police did not take any action in the matter, the Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 to 22 and 24 to 31 inter alia contending that by virtue of agreement executed between the association of timber merchants and the unions, the merchants were permitted to utilise cranes only if there is real necessity. In that event, rate has also been fixed between the parties. Hence, since the agreement is in existence, it is not open for the petitioners to engage any other person other than the members of the unions.