R.K.VENTURES Vs. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner firm has entered into an agreement for carrying out the logistic work of M/s. Indus Towers Ltd., an infrastructure provider in the telecommunication sector. As per the agreement, the petitioner has to undertake the storage and transportation of sensitive electronic panels, sophisticated electronic goods, diesel generators, steel items and allied equipment. For carrying out these activities, the petitioner has constructed a warehouse at Malayidamthuruth in Kizhakkambalam. The Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 ('the Scheme' for short) is made applicable to the area in which the warehouse is situated. The petitioner alleges that the registered headload workers in the area are obstructing the loading and unloading activity carried out in the warehouse. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and effective Police protection to the petitioner and its workers for carrying out loading activity in the warehouse and for running the logistic business without any threat, hindrance or obstruction from the members of the 5th and 6th respondent unions.

(2.) Heard, Sr. Adv. A.V. Thomas appearing for the petitioner, instructed by Adv. Baby Kuriakose, Advs. P.K. Ibrahim, K.S. Arun Kumar, P. Sathisan for respondents 7 to 9 respectively, and Adv. Rekha C. Nair, the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the goods loaded and unloaded at the warehouse are sensitive and sophisticated materials like electronic panels, diesel generators and allied items. Any mishandling by unskilled persons will damage the articles and cause loss to the petitioner. The articles are therefore to be loaded and unloaded by specially trained workers. The other items like diesel generator sets and steel girders are loaded and unloaded using cranes and forklifts. In such circumstances, the demand that the registered headload workers should be engaged for carrying out the activity, is untenable.