High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-09-28Petition allowed

3G Mobile World v. Station House Officer, Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode; District Labour Officer, Kozhikode; Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board; Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU); Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS); All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 18560 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2021-09-28
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed. The Court directed the 1st respondent SHO to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner and its employees for loading and unloading the electronic articles, without hindrance from respondents 4–6, and to maintain law and order in the area of the petitioner’s business. The interim protection previously granted was continued, and the Court noted that Safa System Solutions and A. Balakrishnan lay down that such articles require trained personnel, which the Court has applied in following the same rationale.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

3G Mobile World/MY G, Carnio Vertue, Mini By Pass, Puthiyara, Kozhikode-673 004, represented by its Managing Partner A.K. Shaji, S/o. Kunhammed Haji, aged 49 years

Respondents

1 The Station House Officer, Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode District
2 The District Labour Officer, Office of the District Labour Officer, Kozhikode District
3 The Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board, Kozhicode
4 Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU), Head Load Workers, Kalluthankadav unit
5 Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), Head Load Workers, Kalluthankadav unit
6 All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), Head Load Workers, Kalluthankadav unit

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Aboobacker Sidheeque

Counsels for Respondents

• Thomas Abraham
• E. C. Bineesh

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, a firm engaged in the sale of mobile phones and other delicate electronic goods, contends that loading and unloading of such articles must be performed by trained and skilled personnel rather than the headload workers’ unions. Relying on this Court’s decisions in Safa System Solutions v. Station House Officer, Palarivattom, and A. Balakrishnan v. Circle Inspector of Police, the petitioner asserts that electronic articles are fragile and require skilled handling. It alleges obstruction by respondents 4–6 (unions) who claim the right to handle goods and bar the petitioner’s employees from performing loading/unloading, thereby constraining lawful business. The petitioner had approached the first respondent SHO and sought police protection; this court had previously issued an interim direction (10.09.2021) for protection to load/unload with the petitioner’s own staff. The bench notes that Safa System Solutions and Balakrishnan are binding precedents in this Court, and the court records that the area is under a Kerala Headload Workers Act scheme, yet follows the view that delicate electronic articles must be handled by trained personnel. The court ultimately allows the writ petition, directing the SHO to provide adequate protection and to ensure law and order in the relevant area, thereby enabling the petitioner’s business to operate without hindrance.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that its business involves highly fragile, sophisticated electronic goods such as mobile phones, televisions, laptops, etc., which require skilled handling during loading and unloading. It relies on this Court’s decisions in Safa System Solutions (2018) and A. Balakrishnan (WP(C) No. 14656/2020) holding that mobile/ electronic articles cannot be loaded by untrained headload workers. The petitioner asserts that the area is governed by a scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, under which only registered headload workers may operate; respondents 4–6 and their men have obstructed operations, threatening the petitioner’s rights. It prays for protection from the 1st respondent SHO and for continuation of the interim order dated 10.09.2021 to safeguard loading/unloading by the petitioner’s own staff, ensuring law and order in the area.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the relevant area is governed by a Kerala Headload Workers Act scheme, and loading/unloading should be performed only by registered headload workers. While conceding that Safa System Solutions and Balakrishnan recognize that electronic goods require trained personnel, they urge upholding the statutory framework and maintaining order. They request confirmation of the interim protection and adherence to the scheme, arguing that granting relief to the petitioner could undermine the statutory regime and the rights of organized workers. They emphasize the need for orderly operations and police vigilance to prevent unlawful interference.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Safa System Solutions v. Station House Officer, Palarivattom and Others	2018 (3) KLT 9	Positive	The Court relied on this decision to hold that mobile phones and other electronic articles are delicate and must be handled by trained personnel, a proposition adopted by the present judgment.
A. Balakrishnan v. The Circle Inspector of Police	WP(C) No.14656/2020	Positive	Following this Court’s reasoning that electronic articles are fragile and must be handled by trained personnel, the judgment aligns with the same doctrine in concluding the petitioner’s entitlement to protection.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against 3G Mobile World v. Station House Officer, Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode; District Labour Officer, Kozhikode; Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board; Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU); Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS); All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 6TH ASWINA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 18560 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **3G MOBILE WORLD/MY G, CARNIO VERTUE, MINI BY PASS, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER A.K. SHAJI, S/O. KUNHAHAMMED HAJI, AGED 49 YEARS.** ## **BY ADV K.ABOOBACKER SIDHEEQUE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 008** - **2 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 020** - **3 THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, CHEROOTY ROAD, MANANCHIRA P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT OFFICER.** - **4 CENTRE FOR INDIAN TRADE UNIONS (CITU), HEAD LOAD WORKERS, KALLUTHANKADAVU UNIT, KALLUTHANKADAVU P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **5 BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), HEAD LOAD WORKERS, KALLUTHANKADAVU UNIT, KALLUTHANKADAVU P.O, KOZHIKODE DISRICT, PIN-673 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **6 ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS (AITUC), HEAD LOAD WORKERS KALLUTHANKADAVU UNIT, KALLUTHANKADAVU P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** WPC 18560/21 2 **BY ADVS** **SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM** **SRI. E.C. BINEESH - GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 18560/21 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is stated to be a Firm engaged in the retail sale of Mobile Phones, Televisions, Air Conditioners, Laptops, Mobile Phone accessories and other electronic goods. They say that the articles they deal with are extremely fragile, delicate and sophisticated and consequently, can be loaded and unloaded by skilled personnel only and not by the headload workers attached to the 3rd respondent – Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board. 2. The petitioner relies on the judgments of this Court in **Safa System Solutions v. Station House Officer, Palarivattom and Others** [2018 (3) KLT 9] and in **A.Balakrishnan v. The Circle Inspector of Police** [WP(C)No.14656/2020], in which it has been declared that sophisticated electronic articles can only be handled by trained and skilled workers. 3. The petitioner says that, in spite of the WPC 18560/21 4 afore declaration in law, respondents 4 to 6 and their men are creating obstruction to their business, illegally asserting the right to load and unload the articles; and consequently, that they were forced to approach the 1st respondent – Station House Officer through Ext.P2 complaint. They allege that no action was taken on their request and therefore, that they have been constrained to approach this Court through this Writ Petition. 4. I have heard Sri.K.Aboobacker Sidheeque – learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Thomas rd Abraham – learned Standing Counsel for the 3 respondent and Sri.E.C.Bineesh – learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents. 5. Even though notice has been validly served on respondents 4 and 5, they have chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; thus inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in answer WPC 18560/21 5 to the averments made in this Writ Petition. 6. As regards 6th respondent is concerned, notice issued to them has been returned with an endorsement 'there is no such addressee'. I am, however, of the view that this will not stop this Court from delivering this judgment, on account of the reasons that I will presently state. 7. Sri.Thomas Abraham – learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, submitted that the area where the petitioner is conducting business is one covered by a valid Scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and that therefore, articles can only be loaded and unloaded by the registered headload workers only. However, to a pointed question from this Court, he conceded that in **Safa System** **Solutions** (supra) and in **A.Balakrishnan** (supra) **,** this Court has already declared that mobile phones and other electronic items can only be loaded and unloaded by trained and skilled personnel. – 8. Sri.E.C.Bineesh learned Government WPC 18560/21 6 Pleader, submitted that consequent to the interim order of this Court dated 10.09.2021, Police have been keeping a watch over the area in question and that necessary steps have been taken to maintain law and order. He prayed that the afore interim order be confirmed and that this writ petition be ordered on such terms. 9. I notice that the interim order afore referred to by the learned Government Pleader is to the following effect: The petitioner will take out notice by special messenger to respondents 4 to 6. Sri.Thomas Abrham – learned counsel for R3 and the learned Government Pleader for R1 & R2 seek time to obtain instructions. Even though Sri.Thomas Abrham submits that the area where the petitioner is carrying on business is covered by a Scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, taking note of the petitioner's submission that the articles are delicate and requiring extra care, I deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent – SHO, to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner while they carry on the activities in their business premises including loading and unloading with their own employees until the next posting date. **==> picture [37 x 49] intentionally omitted <==** 10. As rightly stated by the petitioner, in **Safa** WPC 18560/21 7 **System Solutions** (supra), a learned Division Bench of this Court has held that mobile phones are delicate and sophisticated articles, which cannot be loaded by the headload workers; while in **A.Balakrishnan** (supra) **,** another learned Judge of this Court, following **Safa System Solutions** (supra), held that all electronic articles are fragile and delicate, which can be loaded and unloaded only by trained and skilled personnel. In fact, I have followed the directions in these judgments in another Writ Petition. Resultantly, I allow this Writ Petition and direct the 1st respondent – Station House Officer to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner and their employees in loading and unloading the electronic articles, without any let or hindrance from any person, including the members and associates of respondents 4 to 6. Needless to say, the 1st respondent will also ensure that law and order is maintained in the area WPC 18560/21 8 where the petitioner is conducting their business, without any breach being committed by any person, including respondents 4 to 6 and their men. **Sd/-** **RR** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** WPC 18560/21 9 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18560/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENCE ISSUED BY LOCAL AUTHORITY DATED 22.07.2021. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.08.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE LEGAL OFFICER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE FIRST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT.