Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 36358
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
VALSALAKUMARI P – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 15407 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.SREEKUMAR
For the Respondents: S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, ANIMA M.
The court confirmed the petitioner's right to employ workers in a non-covered area, emphasizing that outside schemes, individuals cannot obstruct this entitlement.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 - Non-application of the Scheme in the relevant area - The petitioner sought police protection against obstructions by certain individuals not entitled to work demand - Interim order granted for protection upheld in final decision. (Paras 2, 4, 6)
(B) Employment Rights - The court held that the petitioner, located in a non-scheme area, retains the right to engage her own workers without obstruction from third parties. (Paras 2, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner owns land and constructed a warehouse, facing obstruction from certain individuals demanding work not entitled under applicable laws.
Findings of Court:
The interim order of police protection is confirmed due to the establishment's location outside the scheme covered area.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to unobstructed engagement of workers given her location's regulatory status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, affirming her right to employ workers freely in a non-covered area, confirming the validity of the interim order.
Result: Writ petition disposed of, confirming the interim order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of rights regarding employment in a non-scheme area. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. acknowledgment of police's role concerning employment discontent. (Para 3) |
| 3. emphasizing the importance of a protective order due to obstruction. (Para 5) |
| 4. final confirmation of rights and interim orders. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2025 The petitioner, who is owner in possession of 26 cents of land, has put up a building using steel and iron rods, to be used as a warehouse. A Retail Shop is located near the warehouse. The land in question is situated in an area where the Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 is not made applicable.
2. Therefore, respondents 4 to 9 and their associates cannot as of right cause any obstruction by demanding work since the petitioner is entitled to engage her own workers for loading and unloading activities. Since obstructions were caused, a complaint was lodged to the police, but no effective steps were taken. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking police protection for the warehouse. This was granted in full. Now obstruction is caused at the Shop, contends the petitioner.
3. Standing Counsel representing the 12th respondent-Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board submitted that the area where the petitioner’s Retail Shop is situated is not a Scheme Covered Area.
4. When this writ petition came up for admission on
10.04.2025, this Court passed an interim order to the following effect:-
“Admitted.
2. The learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and 10. The learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 12th respondent. Issue notice by speed post to the respondents 4 to 9 and 11. The respondents may file their counter affidavits, if any.
3. On a consideration of the facts and materials on record, particularly taking into account the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 12th respondent that the petitioner’s establishment is not situated in a scheme covered area under Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to an interim order. Hence, I direct the 2nd respondent to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner and her workers to carry on the works in the establishment, including loading and unloading works, without any obstructions from the part of the party respondents.”
5. Though notice was sent to respondents 4 to 9 and
11, notice is not served on respondents 5 to 9 and there is no appearance for the 4th respondent.
6. Considering the fact that the area is not a Scheme Covered Area, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of confirming the interim order dated 10.04.2025, even though notice is not served on respondents 5 to 9, as the same can be done without affecting the right of respondents 5 to 9.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of confirming the interim order dated 10.04.2025. However, if respondents 4 to 9 have any claim for employment, they will be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act , 1978 for redressal of their grievance.
