THERESA JOSE Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court while hearing this writ petition made a reference to a Full Bench to hear the case by its reference order dated 14/07/2009. A Full Bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges consequently heard the matter and opined that reconsideration of the Full Bench judgment in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police, 1998 KHC 447 : 1998 (2) KLT 732 : 1998 (2) KLJ 459 : ILR 1999 (1) Ker. 107 is necessary and it is appropriate that the issue be considered by a Larger Bench. Thus by a reference order dated 01/12/2010 by three Judges, this matter has been placed before this Larger Bench.

(2.) The brief facts of the case need to be noted first before adverting to the issues which has arisen in this reference. The petitioner, proprietrix of 'M/s. Cochin Granites' is running a business establishment and engaged in the trading of marble, granite, ceramic tiles etc. The business establishment of the petitioner is functioning in the compound of her residential house which is situated in a plot of 128 cents. The petitioner has permanent employees who had been employed for segregating and stacking of different type of marbles, granites, tiles etc. based on their variety, design, colour etc and their duties also include interaction with customers, sale of the items, cutting and polishing of slabs and doing its unloading work from lorries while such items come in the establishment. Petitioner's case is that goods that come to her premises are to be unloaded inside the premises by her own employees who are persons specifically trained for uplifting heavy slabs using modern forklifts and moving cranes. Petitioner claims that about two or three trucks in a month may come to her business establishment on which occasion the abovementioned work of loading and unloading arises. It is contended by petitioners that the 4th respondent Union, Headload and General Workers Union (CITU) and its members demanded that they should be engaged to do the unloading work in the petitioner's establishment. Petitioner informed that she had her own permanent workers who are attending the whole works including loading and unloading of goods from trucks. Hence she does not require the services of any headload worker. On 21/06/2009 when a lorry carrying marble slabs came into the business establishment of the petitioner, 15 persons claiming to be members of 4th respondent Union entered into the premises and obstructed the work. Petitioner also filed a complaint dated 21/06/2009. On the same day when at 10 p.m. the persons again assembled in front of petitioner's house, she informed the police and thereafter lodged FIR and registered crime No. 768/09. Petitioner's further case is that 4th respondent Union have staged a 'dharna' very near to the petitioner's establishment. Petitioner requested the 1st respondent to render necessary police protection, however, protection was not provided. In the circumstances, petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:

(3.) A counter - affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent pleading that petitioner has no permanent workers having statutory registration under R.26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. The area in which the petitioner's establishment is situated is a Scheme covered area where the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 is notified. In the scheme notified area, the workers who are having R.26A card can do the work. Hence members of the 4th respondent Union are entitled to do the headload work concerned in the petitioner's premises. The so called workers of the petitioner, enlisted in Ext. P4, cannot do the headload work as they have no valid registration as per Statute and it is the members of the 4th respondent Union who alone are entitled to do the loading and unloading work in the petitioner's establishment.