Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
SHIVAKUMAR C.K. – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner operates a bricks business, disputes headload workers' claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal obligations regarding the engagement of workers must be determined by authorities. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioner must seek adjudication under law, court ensures law and order. (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2026 The petitioner is the proprietor of a solid cement bricks manufacturing unit. According to the petitioner, he is functioning with every licence contemplated by the law.
2. It is case of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 claiming to be headload workers of the area, are claiming that the loading and unloading work at the unit of the petitioner can only be done through them. It appears to the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner does not presently have any permanent workers who are registered under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), since the loading and unloading in the petitioner’s unit is done using machines and since any other work associated with loading and unloading such as stacking is only incidental, the petitioner is not bound to engage respondents 4 and 5.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
