NIZAMUKHAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ,order or direction to the third respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's business establishment from the acts of respondents 6 to 8 and their henchmen.

(2.) The petitioner is running a hardware shop for the sale of iron and steel. According to the petitioner, his business establishment is having 12 skilled permanent workers for loading and unloading of the materials.

(3.) The petitioner has submitted an application for his four employees for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (for short 'the Rules') way back in 2015. There is considerable delay in disposing of the application by the fifth respondent. Complaining of delay, the petitioner has filed WP(C) NO.35144/2018 before the learned Single Judge. After having heard both sides, without adverting to the merits, the learned Single Bench disposed of the writ petition holding that the fifth respondent will consider the petitioner's application, expeditiously, in 45 days, following the due procedure. However, the fifth respondent, after submitting the judgment of the learned Single Bench, rejected the application as per Ext.P12 without complying with the principles of natural justice. Had the applications submitted by the labourers under Rule 26A of the Rules been allowed, the petitioner would have been in a position to engage his own worker for loading and unloading work in view of the Full Bench decisions in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998(2) KLT 732] and in Karunakara Kurup v. State of Kerala [2001(1) KLT 215]. It is settled law that in an area where the scheme is not applicable, the employer can engage any headload worker of his own choice. Challenging Ext.P12, the petitioner filed an appeal as per Ext.P8 before the District Labour Officer, Kollam.