CRESENT TRADING COMPANY Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the trade of grocery and cement at Tanur in Malappuram District. It is a recently started establishment. Loading and unloading work is incidental to the business activities of the establishment. The goods which are brought to the business premises have to be unloaded and the goods sold to customers directly and to the retail traders have to be loaded and transported to the places indicated by such customers and retailers. The loading and unloading being a major part of the work, petitioner has employed 8 permanent workers who are registered under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, for short 'the Act'. According to the petitioner, they are sufficient to carry on the activities of loading and unloading work that arise in the establishment and for the establishment. But despite the existence of such permanent workmen directly employed by the petitioner, local unions are causing obstruction to the work in the establishment by raising an illegal demand that their members are also to be employed for doing the loading and unloading work in and for the establishment. As the obstruction lead to a complete stalemate as far as the business of the petitioner is concerned, it filed Writ Petition, W.P.(C)No. 9754/2009, before this Court. At that time, the workers employed by it were not registered under the Act and applications for registration were pending, hence, by Ext.Pl judgment, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the disposal of the applications for registration and also directing the police to render necessary protection for carrying out the loading and unloading work for a period of three weeks. Pursuant thereto, applications were considered by the registering authority, viz., the Assistant Labour Officer, and granted registration. Thus, the permanent workers employed by the petitioner had also become registered workers under the Act, who according to the petitioner are thus entitled to carry out all loading and unloading operation in and for the establishment. Exts.P2 to P9 are the registration certificates so issued. The nature of the activities carried on by the petitioner is further explained in paragraph 5 stating that upon getting an order from a retailer, the workers of the petitioner will have to carry goods to such retailer. Depending on the quantity of the goods, the workers may either carry the goods by headload or in a trolley. But there are obstructions by the union leaders stating that this is not part of the work that could be carried out by the permanent workers and according to them the loading and unloading workdone beyond the premises of the establishment cannot be done by such permanent workers. The obstructors are respondents 4 to 6 and their associates. It is contended that such obstruction is illegal. Though the petitioner has made a complaint to the police as evidenced by Ext.P10, no action was taken, as he is reluctant to interfere on account of the political pressure being exerted by the unions especially the 4th respondent union. Petitioner prays, in the circumstances, to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the first respondent to render adequate police protection to the petitioner and the workers employed by it for carrying out all the loading and unloading work, in connection with the delivery of goods to retail traders and customers, and also to remove the obstruction, if any, caused by respondents 4 to 6.

(2.) This Court by an interim direction dated, 21.5.2009, directed the first respondent that in case any obstruction is caused for loading and unloading the materials by engaging the registered workers in the petitioner establishment, such obstruction shall be removed. Subsequently on 3.6.2009, it was clarified that so long as the petitioner is engaging his permanent workers for carrying the goods in connection with his establishment, protection shall be afforded. The matter was adjourned for enabling the respondents to file counter affidavit, if any.

(3.) Headload Workers Union who are alleged to be causing obstruction are arrayed as party respondents 4 to 6. Despite service of notice by special messenger, they did not appear to file counter affidavit controverting the allegations so made in the Writ Petition. However, third respondent, Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, through its Chairman has filed a counter affidavit.