JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be running a business of sale of ceramic glazed tiles, under the name 'Home Centre' and says that he has 5 headload workers attached to his business, who are all registered under the provisions of Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

2. The petitioner says that in spite of the fact that he has his own registered workers, the 3rd respondent and their members are causing obstruction to his business, claiming exclusive rights to do the loading and unloading work; consequently constraining him to approach the 1st respondent – Station House Officer through Ext.P8 complaint, but that since no action was taken thereon, he has been forced to approach this Court through this Writ Petition.

3. Sri.P.S.Gireesh – learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that there were several instances of violence against his client and his employees, which left him with no option but to approach the Police seeking registration of FIRs and crimes against the perpetrators, but that the attempts to cause violence is still continuing unabated. He, therefore, prayed that this Court direct the competent Police Authorities to afford adequate and effective protection to his client and his employees, who are covered by Exts.P3 to P7 registration under the Act.

4. Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent – Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board, submitted that the area in question is covered by a Scheme under the Act, but conceded that if the petitioner has his own registered workers, then the members of the 3rd respondent cannot obstruct or prevent them from undertaking the loading and unloading work. He, however, submitted that, as is clear from the Registers produced by the petitioner before this Court, they are not properly endorsed by the Assistant Labour Officer and consequently that, he is also acting in violation of the applicable Statutes and Rules.

5. Sri.Ajith Prakash – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, submitted that a counter affidavit has been placed on record, wherein, it has been averred that his client has already preferred an appeal before the competent Appellate Authority. He argued that the cause projected by the petitioner is wholly untrue because his clients have not caused any threat or intimidation to him or his employees in any manner whatsoever.

6. Sri.E.C.Bineesh – learned Government Pleader, however, submitted that even after this Writ Petition was filed and the interim order dated 30.07.2021 issued by this Court, there was a complaint made by the petitioner that the members of the 3rd respondent indulged in violence, causing grievous injuries to his employees. He submitted that a crime was registered, as Crime No.804/2021, charging the accused under Sections 448, 341, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and that investigation to the same is still going on. He, therefore, prayed that this Court may confirm the interim order earlier granted and disposed of this Writ Petition on such terms.

7. When I hear the learned Government Pleader as afore, it is clear that the Police have acted swiftly in booking the accused under the relevant provisions of the IPC; but this will not suffice until the fear of law is thrust into the hearts of the members of the 3rd respondent. It is clear from the records that various complaints were raised against the 3rd respondent even before the filing of this Writ Petition and it is rather distressing that even after an interim order was issued by this Court, some of them indulged in acts of violence, leading to registration of Crime No.804/2021. This cannot be condoned or countenanced and I, therefore, direct the competent Police Authorities to ensure that the said crime is properly investigated and the accused brought to justice in terms of law.

8. As far as the petitioner is concerned, I am certain that he is entitled to relief in thi