(1.) The petitioner is the proprietor of an establishment, named M/s.Diya Automobiles, engaged in the sale of auto mobile spare parts, and is an authorised dealer of Hero Motocorp. The petitioner has recently opened a branch in Thiruvananthapuram District. It is stated by the petitioner that immediately on commencement of the business, he has been facing obstruction and threats from the trade unions, of which respondents 5 to 7 are convenors. It is also stated by the petitioner that the said respondents have demanded that they shall be engaged to carry out the loading and unloading works in the establishment of the petitioner at the rates stipulated by them. According to the petitioner, respondents 5 to 7 and their associates have no rights, whatsoever to claim that they shall be engaged by the petitioner for carrying out the loading and unloading works in the establishment of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, preferred a representation for police protection before the third respondent. The writ petition is filed thereafter, alleging that the third respondent is not extending the protection sought by the petitioner and seeking, among others, directions to the third respondent to extend sufficient and meaningful police protection to the petitioner for carrying out the loaning and unloading works in his establishment.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent as also the learned counsel for the party respondents.
(3.) The establishment of the petitioner is situated in an area to which the functional operation of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (Scheme) is extended. But, the case set out by the petitioner is that the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (Act) and the Scheme apply only to establishments specified in the Schedule to the Act and the establishment of the petitioner is not one falling within any of the establishments specified in the Schedule to the Act.