An establishment not encompassed by the Kerala Headload Workers Act is entitled to police protection against interference by trade unions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be engaged in selling spare parts of motor bikes, manufactured by certain companies. The petitioner concedes that they are carrying out their business in an area which is covered by a Scheme notified under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act ; but asserts that, as has been declared in Ext.P4 judgment, same does not apply to their Establishment.

2. The petitioner says that they have their own workers to carry out the incidental work of loading and unloading the articles for sale; but that in spite of this, the 3rd respondent – who claims to be the Convener of a Trade Union – and his men, are causing incessant obstruction in their activities, thus forcing them to have approached the 2nd respondent – Sub Inspector of Police, through Ext.P2, seeking protection. The petitioner says that in spite of this, no action was taken by the said Authority, thus constraining them to move this Court through this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri.Joy Thattil – learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh – learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

4. Even though notice has been validly served from this Court on the 3rd respondent, he has chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me to the impression that he has no objection to the reliefs sought for by the petitioner being granted by this Court.

5. The learned Government Pleader – Sri.E.C.Bineesh, affirmed that Ext.P4 judgment was obtained by the petitioner, with respect to their Establishment in another area and that it has been declared by this Court that same will not come under the ambit of the Kerala Headload Workers Act . He submitted that, therefore, the police are now affording adequate and effective protection to the petitioner and their employees in terms of the interim order of this Court dated 02.09.2021.

6. I notice that on 02.09.2021, this Court had issued the following interim order:

“The petitioner will take out notice before admission by speed post to respondent No.3, returnable within seven days.

Sri.E.C.Bineesh will obtain instructions from respondents 1 and 2.

List on 16.09.2021, until which time, if the petitioner has permanent members on his role, the 2nd respondent will ensure that they are allowed to continue their work without any obstruction or interference by any person including R3 and his associates.”

7. Since the 5th respondent is not appearing before this Court and since Ext.P4 judgment of this Court clearly declares that the Establishment of the petitioner does not come within the ambit of the Kerala Headload Workers Act , I deem it necessary to allow this writ petition, confirming the afore interim order.

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the afore extracted interim order is confirmed; consequently, directing the 2nd respondent to ensure that adequate and effective protection is afforded to the petitioner and their employees for carrying out their activities, from any threats or interference from the 3rd respondent or their men or associates; and that, as and when any complaint is preferred with respect to any violation of this, said respondent shall act swiftly and quickly without any delay.

The 2nd respondent will also ensure that law and order is maintained continuously in the area where the petitioner’s establishment is situated, without any breach being committed by any person, including the party respondents and their men.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

SAS/30/09/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17669/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 16.6.2021 ISSUED BY THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAIN DATED 30.8.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30.8.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

22.11.2019 IN WIRT PETITION (C) NO 30889 OF

2019 OF