JOHN K PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a partner of a firm conducting business. Petitioner has set up an additional godown at Pattalam road in Thrissur close to his show room already existing there. He has to bring articles in trucks, Trucks and vehicles are brought in the compound for the purpose of unloading. According to the petitioner, he has his own workmen for that. But when unloading started on 15.6.98, the petitioner's workmen were obstructed by a group of persons under the leadership of respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner submits. They claimed employment in the headload work available in the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner apprised them that, he is having his own employees. But, that was not heeded to. Petitioner complained to the police. According to the petitioner, "the 1st and 2nd respondents have told him that they are not in a position to provide any protection to the petitioner or to interfere in the matter, as, according to them, the same was a labour dispute". The petitioner does not employ any outside labourer for the loading and unloading work in connection with his show room or godown at Thrissur. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction for police protection including for loading and unloading work in connection with his showroom and godown at Thrissur without obstruction from 4th and 5th respondents.

(2.) Petitioner contends that when he has his own workmen, the members of the 4th respondent union and the pooled workers under the 5th respondent cannot demand employment, under the petitioner. They have no manner of right to obstruct the work conducted by the petitioner with his own workmen. He has no liability to employ workmen unionised under the 4th respondent or the workmen pooled under the 5th respondent. Therefore, he shall be granted police protection, the petitioner submits.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent. It is submitted by them that the place where the godown and showroom of the petitioner are situated is covered by Kerala" Headload Workers Regulation of Employment and Welfare (Scheme), 1983 framed in terms of S.13 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978. Therefore, when such Scheme is in force, according to the 4th respondent, "the individual employer loses his right (if any) to engage or employ his own workers for doing the loading and unloading work". It is submitted by the 4th respondent that only workers registered under the Scheme can be employed by the petitioner. It is further contended that, "after the Scheme is brought into operation in any area, no headload worker who is not a registered headload worker under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules shall be allowed or required to work in that area. Hence if the employer is having any headload worker who is registered under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, they alone can work in such area". The petitioner does not have any registered headload worker, the counsel contends. If there are such registered workers, their name should find a place in the register statutorily maintained by the petitioner in terms of S.25 and 26 of the said Act. Therefore, the members of the 4th respondent who are pooled by the 5th respondent alone will have the right to work in the petitioner's establishment in connection with the loading and unloading operation. So, police protection shall not be granted.