JAYAPRAKASH Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, who are husband and wife, own paddy fields and are engaged regularly in agricultural operations at Payyaloor, Kollengode. They employ permanent workers to attend to all works of farming. During the current year, the third respondent-Union representing employees engaged in headload works in the area had put up a demand that loading works, especially that of paddy available there, should be entrusted to them. Petitioners do not recognise the right, especially since their own permanent workers would have to be kept idling. As there was obstruction and threat of use of force, they had requested for police help, and as this was not forthcoming the writ petition has come to be filed. The interim order passed, as at present, takes cares of the interest of the petitioners now.

(2.) When the matter came up for hearing, we had heard Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, appearing on behalf of the third respondent--Union. He submits that the petitioners are large scale agriculturists having about 8 acres of land under cultivation. The work of loading and unloading of paddy, manure and the like comes within the purview of the Headload Workers Act. The petitioners reside in a Scheme notified area. Loading and unloading works in such areas are to be exclusively carried out by registered workmen and he submits that the writ petition itself is misconceived.

(3.) In view of the importance of the issue, on our own, we had taken the task of examining the veracity of the contentions, as above.