IBAJ TRADING ESTABLISHMENT Vs. INTUC MOOLEKKADAVU UNIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and learned Government Pleader.

(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has come up praying for a mandamus commanding respondents 6 and 7 to render adequate, effective and meaningful protection for loading and unloading work of the petitioner by its own permanent employees in the godown premises of the petitioner from the obstruction caused by respondents 1 to 5. Petitioner's case is that it is running a super market namely 'I -mall'. Petitioner claims to have 20 permanent workers in its godown. It is submitted that the area is not a scheme covered area under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978. But, obstruction has been caused by respondents 1 to 5 claiming that they are entitled for employment in the petitioner's concern.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner is relying on the judgment of this Court in Nujumudeen v. City Police Commissioner [2011(3) KLT 268] wherein it is held that notwithstanding the fact that a worker has no registration under Rule 26A, he can be employed by any employer in any area in which the Scheme has not become functional.