VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and his employees, who are doing the loading and unloading work of M/s. Karthika Traders.

(2.) The averments in the Writ Petition would disclose that the petitioner is running a hardware shop in the aforesaid name and style. He has his own permanent workers and respondents 4 to 7 unions are insisting that the loading and unloading work in the business premises of the petitioner should be carried on only by their members. That apart, they are demanding exorbitant charges for the said loading and unloading work. According to the petitioner, he has his own permanent workers and since the area in question is not an area covered by the scheme under the Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983, the petitioner is entitled to carry on the loading and unloading work by engaging his own workers or the members of respondent unions, which cannot be prevented by respondents 4 to 7 or their members. When such obstruction has been caused, the petitioner had approached the police, but no action is taken by the police, hence he has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that though declaration has been published to notify the area in question as a scheme covered area, the same has not been implemented, which may take some time.