JUDGMENT

1.This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 2nd and 3rd respondent to remove the obstruction caused by the respondent Nos.5 to 12 and their henchmen and direct to provide adequate protection to the petitioner and her employees from the respondents No 5 to 12 and their henchman, to run the shop smoothly.

ii) To declare that the respondents No.5 to 12 or men under them has no authority to interfere and obstruct loading and and loading work in the shop owned by the petitioner through the attached head load workers having Rule 26A card”

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. Though respondents 6 to 12 have been served with notice there is no appearance for the said respondents.

3.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a lady entrepreneur engaged in the business of retail sale of iron pipes and sheets under the name “Sri. Porkkali Steels”. It is contended that she started a shop at Madayi China Clay Road during December, 2021, after obtaining all required permissions. She required only minimum employees for loading and unloading and she has three attached headload workers having Rule 26A cards. However, respondents 5 to 12 are obstructing the loading and unloading work and manhandling the attached workers, it is contended. It is submitted that respondents 5 to 12 are sitting in front of the shop and not permitting customers to enter the shop. Though complaints were submitted, no action has been taken thereon.

4.This Court by order dated 8.3.2022 had directed that in case of threat or obstruction by the party respondents, the petitioner shall inform the 3rd respondent who shall take proper steps to see that law and order is maintained. It is contended that even thereafter, the criminal obstruction and intimidation have been going on. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exhibits P2 to P4 are identity cards of the attached workers of the petitioner and that the petitioner is entitled to carry out the loading and unloading activities in her establishment at Madayi utilising the services of the registered head load workers.

5.Relying on the decisions of this Court in Pareeeth v. Sub Inspector of Police [2003 KHC 380], Eastern Condiments (P) Ltd. v.Sub Inspector of Police [2012 KHC 2597] and Sureshkumar v. District Labour Officer [ 2021(2) KLT 313 (FB) and K.K.Issac and Company and another v. District Police Chief, Aluva and others [2020(2) KHC 190], it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the the petitioner is entitled to carry out the loading and unloading activities with her permanent workers having registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981.

6.A statement has been placed on record by the 4th respondent contending that the petitioner's permanent workers are specifically registered for loading and unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment situated in Cheemeni which is in Kasaragod. It is submitted that the petitioner seeks police protection in respect of loading and unloading activities in a completely different establishment, that is, Sri.Porkkali Steels, Madayi which is a separate and distinct establishment and that the petitioner, admittedly, does not have any permanent workers, who have registration under Rule 26A or identity cards issued under Clause 6A of the Scheme for the establishment in question and that therefore the petitioner is duty bound to engage the pool workers, who are so registered. It is contended that the premises where the petitioner's establishment is located is admittedly a Scheme Covered Area and that the petitioner's contention cannot be accepted.

7.I have considered the contentions advanced on either side.

The decision of this