JUDGMENT

1.This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- “i)Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any such other directions or orders commanding the respondents 1 to 2 Police Authorities to afford adequate, necessary and effective police protection to life of the petitioner enabling with incidental work of loading and unloading sophisticated articles granite, marble and kadappa slabs and tiles in their business premises of M/S “ Pioneers Tiles and Granites in building No KSP /XIV/1383 at Puthiyakavu and its branch at KSP /V/687 by engaging themselves without any interference and interruption from the respondents 3 to 5 or their supporters.

ii) To declare that the respondents 3 to 5 have no right to claim loading and unloading works in the business premises of M/S “ Pioneers Tiles and Granites either at head office or its branch and and petitioners are having every right to conduct and carry out business establishment by engaging themselves all works attached to including office works, driving, slab cutting, display works loading and unloading auxiliary works and is not bound at any point to engage any outside head load workers including respondents3 to 5 or their supporters.”

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 and the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent.

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners 1 to 13 are partners of M/s.Pioneers Tiles and Granites, having a Head Office and branch at Puthiyakavu, Kollam. It is submitted that on 7.11.2021, the firm has started functioning in an enclosed premises with container/trailer access. It is submitted that the materials being loaded and unloaded in the premises are ceramic and granite, kadappa and marble flooring materials and slabs cladding stones etc. It is submitted that respondents 3 to 5 are obstructing and interfering with the loading and unloading works carried out by the petitioners themselves and that the complaints preferred before the police have not evoked any response. It is submitted that since the petitioners themselves are able to carry out the loading and unloading works, they do not require the assistance of pool workers. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to police protection for carrying out the activities.

4.A statement has been placed on record by the standing counsel for the 6th respondent contending that the area in which the establishment of the petitioners is situated is a Scheme implemented area and that there are 16 workers having registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules and who possess employment cards under the Scheme. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioners that the petitioners are partners of the firm is itself a completely untenable contention and that Exhibit P1 is a bogus document prepared only to deny work to the headload workers having registration under the Rules. It is submitted that Exhibit P1 itself would show that the firm is not registered and that the share holding of all the partners except the 1st and 2nd partners is 1%. It is contended that the entire exercise is intended only to defeat the claims of the pool workers. It is further contended that Exhibits P2 and P3 would show that the licences granted by the Panchayat are in the name of Nissan Abdul Rehiman Kunju, the 1st petitioner, as a proprietary concern and none of the documents produced would show the firm is a registered firm or that the other petitioners have any manner of right or share in the profits thereof. It is, therefore, contended that under the provisions of the Headload Workers Act the petitioners cannot set up Exhibit P1 as a ruse to deny work to pool workers in the scheme covered area. It is further contended that the petitioners evidently do not have any registration under the Headload Workers Rules and that they cannot claim any benefit out of Exhibit P1, which is