ASHOK MENON, J.

1. The petitioner is before us seeking police protection from the alleged threat held out by the 5th respondent-Union and its members.

2. The petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of purchase and sale of mobile phones of high quality. Ext.P1 is the registration certificate of the firm and Exts.P2 to Ext.P4 are the tax invoices evidencing purchase of the phones in bulk from different companies. The phones are transported to the petitioner's godown. The firm also supplies mobile phones in different consignments addressed to the consumers at different places. Ext.P5 series are copies of such invoices. The mobile phones are loaded and unloaded by the petitioner firm as delicate sensitive equipments, to be handled with utmost care by experienced persons engaged by the petitioner. The consignments are to be unloaded and then despatched to different consumers in closed vehicles, which is done by the permanent staff of the petitioner firm. Dropping of parcel of mobile phones or handling negligently will cause huge loss to the firm. Hence, the petitioner cannot engage the general head-load workers for loading and unloading of mobile phones. The 5th respondent-Union and its members approached the petitioner firm and demanded loading and unloading work for their members and they even caused obstruction to the work being done by the permanent workers of the petitioner firm. This resulted in stoppage of business, causing huge loss to the firm. Ext.P6 complaint was filed before the 1st respondent seeking police protection for loading and unloading of mobile phones. But no action has been taken. The petitioner, therefore, prays that sufficient and adequate protection may be afforded to the petitioner firm by issuing specific directions to respondents 1 to 3 so as to enable the firm to continue their business of mobile phones.

3. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, inter-alia, denying the averments in the petition. It is stated that the area is a scheme covered area and hitherto the loading and unloading of mobile phones, which comes in large packages, were being carried out by the loading workers registered with the pool. They are also doing similar work in the other mobile shops in the locality. The 4th respondent had approached the petitioner to get his concern registered under the Kerala Head-load Workers Act 1978 (“the Act” for short). This has prompted the petitioner to approach this court with this writ raising false averments against the party respondents.

4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that his concern is dealing with sensitive, delicate and sophisticated articles like mobile phones as explained in explanation-II to Section 2(m) of the Act, excluded from the purview of the Act. The mobile phones are very costly as could be seen from Ext. P7. Loss or damage to the equipments would be very dear to the petitioner.

5. We heard the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 6, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent Board and the Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the area in dispute is a scheme covered area and that, there are several workers in the pool as per the Scheme and excluding them from loading and unloading work of mobile phones in the establishment of the petitioner, would deprive them of considerable amount of work and they would be rendered jobless.

7. The learned Counsel for the 5th respondent submits that the members of the Union would carry out the work with due diligence and care and that the mobile phones are delivered in big packets, which would require head-load workers to unload as also, despatching of mobile phones to different areas is done.

8. The learned Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent relies on the decision reported in Amma Granites and Tiles vs. District Labour Officer, 2016 (3) KLT 625, to argue that in an area covered by the S