EMERALD CEMENTS Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Emerald Cements, the petitioner herein, is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of Cement. This petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to afford police protection to the petitioner and their workers for effectively carrying out the operations without any threat or obstruction from the party respondents.

(2.) Short facts are as under: The petitioner has been issued with Ext.P1 certificate under the Kerala Micro Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019, and categorized as "Manufacturing Enterprise." Initiated by a cadre of innovative young entrepreneurs aiming to forge a sustainable livelihood, the enterprise embarked on establishing a cutting-edge cement manufacturing facility, ensuring that the entire production process is fully automated. The petitioner contends that from the moment raw materials enter the premises to the final stage, where finished products are mechanically loaded onto lorries via a conveyor belt system, the operation is designed to minimize manual labour. It is highlighted that materials are brought to the factory using Tipper Lorries outfitted with mechanical aids and state-of-the-art automated machinery and highlights the firm's commitment to a highly efficient manufacturing process devoid of any manual headload work. It is contended that the petitioner has two operators and two helpers who are attached to the enterprise, which aspect is borne out from Ext. P4. It is contended that the workforce is optimally sized to manage the packaging and loading of cement bags, thus negating any necessity for additional manual labor. It is also urged that the incidental work of stacking the packed bags that tumble down from the conveyor belt into the lorry is carried out by the attached workers. It is further asserted that the establishment run by the petitioner will not fall under Sec. 2(j) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978, and is not included in the Schedule appended to the Act. It is also stated that the establishment has only recently commenced operations, and the volume of business is low.

(3.) The petitioner asserts that the party respondents have raised a claim that they should be provided with headload work in the establishment. They are also demanding that they should be compensated if the intention of the petitioner is to deprive them of their right to carry out headload work. It is contended that the workers of the Union trespassed into the premises on 16/1/2024 and obstructed the work and functioning of the factory. The petitioner apprehends that the party respondents may use force and cause harm to the petitioner and his workers if they are not provided with work, which the petitioner is not legally obliged to provide. Exasperated by the belligerence of the Union Workers, the petitioner approached the official respondents and lodged a complaint. However, they refuse to interfere with the matter. Seeking intervention and to enable the petitioner to carry on the manufacture of cement without obstruction from any quarters, they have approached this Court with this writ petition.