Gaylord Distropolis Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 16427 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER:** **GAYLORD DISTROPOLIS PRIVATE LIMITED A LIMITED COMPANY HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE IN THE ADDRESS, ALUVA ROAD, ANGAMALY SOUTH P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR CLINTON PAUL, AGED 29, S/O.K.A.PAULOSE, KACHAPILLY HOUSE, ANGAMALY SOUTH P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT683573.** **BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.** - **2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683542.** - **3 THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683542.** - **4 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683542.** - **5 SECRETARY AND POOL LEADER, INTUC HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION, KADUVEL JUNCTION POOL, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683542.** - **6 SECRETARY AND POOL LEADER, CITU HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION, KADUVEL JUNCTION POOL, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683542.** **ADDL.R7 V.A.RAHIM MEMBER, PERUMBAVOOR SUB COMMITTEE OF THE WELFARE BOARD, NOMINATED BY INTUC. VELLAMBILLY HOUSE, RAYONPURAM P. O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 543.** **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** **2** **ADDL.R8 C.V.MUHAMMEDALI MEMBER, PERUMBAVOOR SUB COMMITTEE OF THE WELFARE BOARD, NOMINATED BY INTUC. CHIRAKKAKUDY HOUSE, KANNAMTHARA, VENGOLA P. O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 556.** **ADDL.R9 C. V. JINNA MEMBER, PERUMBAVOOR SUB COMMITTEE OF WELFARE BOARD, NOMINATED BY CITU. CHAKKARAKKUDI HOUSE, KANNAMTHARA, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 556.** **ADDL.R10 DAVID THOPPILAN** **INTUC REGIONAL PRESIDENT, THOPPIL HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR P. O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542.** **ADDL.R11 SIDHIQUE PULIMAMBILLY** **REGIONAL MEMBER, PERUMBAVOOR SUB COMMITTEE OF THE WELFARE BOARD, NOMINATED BY INTUC. ALAMKULAM HOUSE, VENGOLA P. O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 556.** **ADDL.R12 M.A.SULAIMAN** **INTUC REGIONAL SECRETARY, MAITHANAMMUGHAL HOUSE, PENGASSERY P. O., VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 556.** **ADDL.R13 VINOD T.G** **INTUC POOL WORKER, THADATHIL HOUSE, NELLIMOLAM, RAYAMANAGALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 545.** **ADDL.R14 C.M.KRISHNANKUTTY** **INTUC POOL WORKER, VADAKKEKARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KADUVAL, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542.** **ADDL.R15 ASOKAN A. K.** **INTUC POOL WORKER, VATTAPARAMBIL, KADUVAL, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542.** **ADDL.R16 T. S. GOVINDANKUTTY** **INTUC POOL WORKER, THADATHIL HOUSE, KADUVAL, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542.** **ADDL.R17 T.M.SHIYAS INTUC POOL WORKER, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAKKAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542.** **ADDL.R18 C.V.UNNI CITU POOL WORKER, CHOOLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KADUVAL, PERUMBAVOOR,** **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** **3** **ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542.** - **19 A. RAJU** **CITU POOL WORKER, KANYARACKAL HOUSE, KADUVAL, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542.** **ADDL. R7 TO R19 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS AS PER ORDER DATED 09.07.2021 IN IA NO.4/2021. BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SHRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN SRI.PAUL C THOMAS SMT.T.N.SREEKALA SRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL SHRI.BABU M. SHRI.NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN SMT.ANCY THANKACHAN SRI.HAARIS MOOSA SMT.DEVYANI SMT.NIKHITA ANN REBELLO SHRI.ADESH JOSHI SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** **4** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------W.P.(C).No.16427 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 09[th] day of July, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is a limited company engaged in the business of sale of pipes, building materials for structures, and roofing materials also. According to the petitioner, their registered office is at Angamaly. The company seeks police protection for the alleged obstruction caused by the members of respondents 5 and 6, who are the local headload workers union of Kaduvel Junction, where the branch of the petitioner company is situated. The petitioner submitted that the whole unit is fully mechanized and all the loading and unloading is done by machines and they are operated by skilled people appointed by the petitioner. Ext.P1 is some of the photographs produced by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, respondents 5 and 6 are the local leaders of the pool of headload workers unions. The petitioner submitted that they cause obstruction to the loading and unloading work in the petitioner's unit stating that the same has to be entrusted to them as it is their right. The petitioner relied on paragraphs 3 and 4 of the **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** **5** judgment of this Court in **Maratt Plantations (P) Ltd. and Another v. District Police Chief, Malappuram and Otherss [2019 (4) KHC 803]** . The judgment itself is produced as Ext.P2 in this writ petition. 2. When there was obstruction from the contesting respondents, the petitioner approached the Police for removing the obstruction. Police is not doing anything to remove the obstruction. The petitioner submitted that he has his own skilled workers and they are operating the machines. Therefore this writ petition is filed with following prayers: _i. Issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction commanding the 2[nd] respondent to provide adequate, substantial and effective police protection to the life and unit of the petitioner and to remove the obstructions caused by the respondents 5 and 6 and its members, for the petitioner to have the loading and unloading, unhindered, in the interest of justice._ - _ii. Issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction commanding the 2[nd] respondent to take note of the complaint of the petitioner and to act upon the same, within specified time limits, in the interest of justice._ **6** ## **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** _iii. To pass any such or further orders as the petitioner may seek and this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant._ 3. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 12.08.2020, this Court passed the following order: _“Notice before admission to the respondents. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 3[rd] respondent. Issue urgent notice by speed post to respondent Nos.5 and 6._ _Heard Sri. Sreekumar Chelur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent._ _Having regard to the facts, I direct the 2[nd] respondent to ensure that law and order is maintained._ _Post after two weeks.”_ Thereafter the writ petition again came up for consideration on 05.10.2020. On that day, this Court passed a detailed order after considering the contentions of the parties, which is extracted hereunder: _“Sri. Sreekumar Chelur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the provisions of the Head Load Workers Scheme_ **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** **7** _1983 has been made applicable in the area, as the entire work in the establishment is carried on by skilled workers using machines and cranes, the petitioner is entitled to employ his own workers to the exclusion of the registered workers. He would rely on the law laid down in Maratt Plantations (P) Ltd and Another v District Police Chief, Malappuram and Others [2019 (4) KLT 22] and Vettro Traders and Integrated Services v Sub Inspector of Police and others [(2019 (3) KLT 825] to bring home his point._ _2. Sri C.S. Ajith Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 have seriously disputed the contentions advanced by the learned counsel. He points out that the establishment is situated in a scheme covered area and workers holding cards under Rule 26A have been engaged by the petitioner for his loading and unloading work even in the month of June 2020. Thereafter, on the premise that a single crane was purchased the registered workers are being kept away and in their place migrant workers are employed. It is submitted that a single machine will not be enough to deal with the loading and unloading requirements as the retail sales would involve manual work as well. It is pointed out that the petitioner has neither furnished the details of the machine nor the details of the skilled workers employed by the petitioner._ _3. In response, Sri Sreekumar submitted that after the introduction of the crane, there is no requirement_ **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** **8** _of headload workers though they used to be employed earlier. He states that he would be able to convince anyone who visits his establishment that no manual labourer is required for the purpose of loading and unloading work in his establishment._ _4. Having regard to the facts, I direct the District Labour Officer or the Assistant Labour Officer of the area in question to inspect the establishment and report on the nature of work being carried out in the establishment, whether retails sales are carried out and whether the entire work can be carried out using the solitary crane installed in the premises. The petitioner shall also furnish the furnish details of his skilled workers._ _The standing counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent shall also file a statement.”_ 4. As per the order of this Court dated 05.10.2020, this Court directed the District Labour Officer / the Assistant Labour Officer of the area in question to inspect the establishment and report on the nature of work being carried out in the establishment, whether retails sales are carried out and whether the entire work can be carried out using the solitary crane installed in the premises. Based on the above order, the Assistant Labour Officer submitted a report on 18.11.2020, which is extracted hereunder: **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** **9** _“In accordance with the interim order in WP (C) 16427/2020 (C) dated 5.10.2020, the following report submitted by the Addl. Respondent R4, herewith following to the Inspection conducted the M/s Gaylord Distropolis Private Limited Koduval, Perumbavoor._ ## _**Q1) The nature of work that is being carried out in the said Establishment?**_ _Ans: The Establishment is engaged in wholesale and retail business/trading dealer stockist of G I pipe, TMT Roofing sheet, Angles, Plates, Channels, TMT, Joists, Mesh, Paints e.t.c._ ## _**Q2. Whether retail sales are carried out act there?**_ _Ans: Both wholesale and retail sales are carried out in the establishment._ ## _**Q3. Whether the entire work can be carried out using the solitary crane installed in the premises?**_ _Ans: No, The entire loading and unloading work cannot be carried out without the help of human being. As per the records at the time of inspection in the establishment (Muster Roll) the said employer appointed 3 loading staff and a crane operator / supervisor for the purpose of loading and unloading work. The engaged loading and unloading workers have not obtained registration under the KHWW Act._ _Further to the above it may also report that the establishment is situated in the Kerala Headload_ **10** ## **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** _Workers Welfare Board Scheme area within jurisdiction of Perumbavoor Sub Office, on enquiry it is also revealed that the headload workers of KHWWB were engaged the entire loading and unloading work before the installation of crane in the Establishment._ _The above report is submitted before the Honourable High Court and the Order dated 5.10.2020 in WP(C) 16427/2020(C) is hence complied with.”_ 5. The question No.2 in the above report and the answer to the same are important. Thereafter, the matter again came up for consideration on 03.02.2021. On that day, this Court passed another order, which reads as follows: _“Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 05.10.2020, the 4[th] respondent has filed a report dated 18.11.2020, in which it is stated that the petitioner is engaging loading and unloading workers, who have not obtained registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Act._ _The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file objections in the form of a reply affidavit to the report submitted by the 4[th] respondent. Ten days time granted._ _It is made clear that the interim order granted by this Court on 12.08.2020 directing the 2[nd] respondent to ensure that law and order is maintained will not entitle the petitioner to carry out loading and_ **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** **11** _unloading activities in his establishment by engaging any unregistered headload workers.”_ 6. subsequently the matter was heard in detail on 16.02.2021. On that day, this Court considered the contentions of both parties and also the report submitted by the Assistant Labour Officer, and passed the following order: _“By the order dated 12.8.2020 this Court directed the 2[nd] respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor Police Station to ensure that law and order is maintained. Thereafter, on 5.10.2020, this Court directed the District Labour Officer or the 4[th] respondent Assistant Labour Officer to inspect the petitioner's establishment and report on the nature of work being carried out, whether retail sales are carried out and whether the entire work can be carried out using the solitary crane installed in the premises. The petitioner was also directed to furnish the details of his skilled workers._ _2. Pursuant to that order, the 4[th] respondent Assistant Labour Officer submitted an inspection report dated 18.11.2020, which is placed on record along with the memo filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader. In the said report, it is stated that the petitioner engaged loading and unloading workers who have not obtained registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Act. By order dated 03.02.2021, this Court has made it clear that the_ **12** ## **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** _interim order granted on 12.8.2020 directing the 2[nd] respondent to ensure that law and order is maintained will not entitle the petitioner to carry out loading and unloading activities in the establishment by engaging unregistered headload workers._ _3. The petitioner has filed I.A. No.2/2021 seeking an order directing the police to provide necessary protection to carry out the loading and unloading works using crane, as supervised by the crane operator, and if found necessary, in the presence of the Labour Officer of the area. In the affidavit filed in support of that interlocutory application, the petitioner has stated as to the obstruction allegedly caused by the members of respondents 5 and 6 to the loading and unloading activities undertaken in the establishment using crane._ _4. During the course of arguments, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that loading and unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment can be carried out using the crane installed in the premises, which is being operated by crane operator, with the help of a supervisor. On 18.2.2021 and 19.2.2021, the petitioner wants to unload materials brought in heavy goods vehicles, using the crane, which can be done in the presence of the 2[nd] respondent Sub Inspector of Police, an authorised officer of the 3[rd] respondent and also the 4[th] respondent Assistant Labour Officer._ _5. The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 would_ **13** ## **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** _submit that in case the petitioner is doing loading and unloading work with mechanical devices, without engaging manual labourers, the headload workers in the locality can have no grievance. However, if there is any requirement for manual labourers, the petitioner has to engage the pool workers._ _6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court deem it appropriate to pass an interim order as follows:_ _On 18.2.2021 and 19.2.2021, the petitioner shall undertake the unloading of materials brought in heavy goods vehicles in the presence of an authorised officer of the 3[rd] respondent and also the 4[th] respondent by 11 am, using the crane installed in the premises, with the help of the crane operator and the supervisor, without engaging manual labourers. The 2[nd] respondent Sub Inspector of Police shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no obstruction whatsoever to such unloading of materials in the petitioner's establishment, by the members of respondents 5 and 6 unions. In case, the unloading work requires manual labourers, then the petitioner has to engage the pool workers.”_ [Emphasis supplied]. 7. Again the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 05.03.2021. On that day, a Compact Disk which contains video of the entire loading and unloading work in the petitioner's premises was produced. The same was considered **14** ## **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** by this Court and thereafter passed an order, which is extracted hereunder: _“Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 16.02.2021, unloading of materials brought in heavy goods vehicles to the petitioner's establishment on 18.02.2021 and 19.02.2021 was done in the presence of an authorised representative of the 3[rd] respondent Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, the 4[th] respondent Assistant Labour Officer and also the Circle Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor Police Station. The 4[th] respondent has filed a report dated 24.02.2021 enclosing therewith a copy of the complaint submitted by the Pool Leader on 20.02.2021. The petitioner has videographed the unloading activity and a Compact Disk is produced along with a memo dated 01.03.2021 filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner._ _On 03.03.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, it was ordered to be listed today at 2.00 p.m., in physical Court._ _Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, in physical sitting, Registry has made necessary arrangements for seeing the unloading activity videographed by the petitioner. From the video clipping, it is seen that, during the unloading activity, certain persons have caused obstructions, who have even challenged the Circle Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor Police Station, who was discharging his_ **15** ## **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** _official duty._ _The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 would submit that the name and address of the leaders of both Unions, who raised certain issues at the time of unloading activity shall be furnished along with a memo._ _List on 10.03.2021, in video conferencing.”_ In the light of the above order, I.A.No.4/2021 was filed to implead additional respondent Nos.7 to 19 in the writ petition. The same is allowed now. Notice was issued in the above application earlier. They also appeared and filed a counter affidavit on 30.03.2021. They narrated the incident mentioned by this Court in the order dated 05.03.2021 with certain explanations. But in the concluding portion of the affidavit, they deposed that, “..So if any inconvenience caused to this Honourable Court, this respondent is expressing heartfelt apology for the same....”. They prayed to drop the further proceedings against them. I leave it there. 8. Today the matter came up for consideration again. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the writ petition and argued the case based on the documents and CD produced by him. The counsel submitted that the entire work in the establishment of the petitioner is carried out **16** ## **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** through machines and there is absolutely no work for the headload workers. The counsel fairly submitted that the petitioner is ready to take video of the entire mechanised work carried out in his premises and produce the same before the 3[rd] respondent on daily basis and it can be verified by him in the presence of the contesting respondents. If it is found that, there is any work which is to be done by the headload workers, the Board can pass appropriate orders. 9. The counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that they filed a detailed counter in this writ petition. The counsel takes me specifically to the report dated 18.11.2020, and also specifically to question No.3 in the report and the answer to the same given by the Assistant Labour Officer, Perumbavoor. The counsel also takes me through the report submitted by the Assistant Labour Officer on 24.02.2021 and the statement given by the Pool Leader, which is produced along with the report of the Assistant Labour Officer, Perumbavoor. The crux of the contentions of the contesting respondents is that the video produced in the CD is stage managed by the petitioner. The counsel takes me through the report dated 24.02.2021 of the Assistant Labour **17** ## **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** Officer, in which it is stated that the materials are brought from the petitioner's another branch situated at Elavoor. According to the counsel, it was packed from another branch of the petitioner in a manner in which it can be unloaded using crane. The counsel stated that it is a clear case in which the petitioner wants to avoid the headload workers. The counsel submitted that it is a headload workers scheme covered area in which the headload workers have got a right to work. The counsel submitted that this Court may not allow the prayers in this writ petition. 10. The Standing Counsel who is appearing for the 3[rd] respondent submitted that they filed a detailed counter in this writ petition narrating the factual situation. The standing counsel submitted that it is a scheme covered area and therefore, the headload workers have got right to do the work. The standing counsel submitted that the submission of the petitioner is not correct. According to the 3[rd] respondent Board, the loading and unloading work cannot be carried out in the petitioner's premises without the help of headload workers. The counsel submitted that the registered headload workers have got right to do the loading and unloading work **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** **18** in the petitioner's premises. 11. The matter to be decided in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is doing the loading and unloading work using crane and whether any help of the headload workers are necessary for doing the same. The definite contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner can do the entire loading and unloading work using cranes and the headload workers are not necessary for doing the work in the premises of the petitioner. Admittedly it is a scheme covered area. If there is work to be done by the headload workers, the petitioner is bound to engage them. On the one side the petitioner says that he is doing the entire loading and unloading work using crane without the help of human beings. On the other side, the Board and the contesting respondents says that the petitioner cannot do the work without the help of headload workers. It is true that a CD which contain the video of the entire loading and unloading activities of 18.02.2021 and 19.02.2021 is produced before this Court. It is also true that that there is report from the Assistant Labour Officer after visiting the premises. The contents in the video produced by the petitioner is disputed by the respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 **19** ## **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** and the report submitted by the Assistant Labour Officer is disputed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, I am not in a position to accept those reports or the video produced in the CD. The only possible thing which I can do in this case is that there can be a direction to the petitioner to video record all the loading and unloading work doing in the premises using machines/crane on everyday basis and produce the same before the 3[rd] respondent. The 3[rd] respondent can peruse the same and if it is revealed that there is work for the headload workers, the 3[rd] respondent can pass appropriate orders. In such situation, the petitioner is bound to accept the same. The workers of respondents 5 and 6 can also watch the video produced by the petitioner from the office of the 3[rd] respondent. They can also give suggestion to the 3[rd] respondent about the same. If the 3[rd] respondent intends to pass an order against the petitioner, after watching the video produced by them, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner will obey the orders passed by the 3[rd] respondent. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by the 3[rd] respondent, the petitioner is free to challenge that order also. **20** ## **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** Therefore this writ petition is disposed in the following manner: 1. The Station House Officer concerned will give adequate police protection to the petitioner and his employees for loading and unloading of materials in the petitioner's establishment, without any obstruction from the members of respondent Nos.5 and 6 unions, when the loading and unloading works are carried out using machines and cranes with the help of crane operator and crane supervisor. 2. The petitioner will take video of the entire loading and unloading work using the machines/crane and produce the same before the 3[rd] respondent on everyday basis. 3. In case loading work requires manual labourers, then the petitioner has to engage the pool workers. 4. After watching the videos produced by the petitioner, if the 3[rd] respondent feels that the unloading work requires manual labourers, the **21** ## **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** 3[rd] respondent will pass appropriate orders to that effect after hearing the affected parties and communicate the same to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner is bound by such orders passed by the 3[rd] respondent, unless it is varied or modified by a competent authority/court. 6. The officers of respondents 3 and 4 are free to inspect the premises of the petitioner regularly to see that the loading and unloading work is carried out using cranes and without the help of any manual labourers. JV Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** **22** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16427/2020** - **PETITIONER ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECENT PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4.8.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN 2019 VOL 4 K H C PAGE 803 DATED 20.8.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 5.8.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5.8.2020.** - **EXHIBIT R5(a) A TURE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE POOL WORKER T.S GOVINDANKUTTY** - **EXHIBIT R5(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD UNDER 6 A OF THE SCHEME ISSUED TO THE DEPONENT** - **EXHIBIT R5(C) A TURE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO MR. SHIYAS. T.M. UNDER 6 A OF THE SCEHEME.** - **EXHIBIT R5(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO C.V. UNNI UNDER 6A OF THE SCHEME 1983** - **EXHIBIT R5(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE REMITTANCE RECEIPT DATED 10.07.2020 SHOWING REMITTANCE BEFORE THE 'BOARD' IN THE NAME OF HTE PETITIONER ESTABLISHMENT** - **EXHIBIT R5(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE REMITTANC RECEIPT DATED 10.07.2020 SHOWING REMITTANCE BEFORE THE BOARD IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER ESTABLISHMENT** - **EXHIBIT R5(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE REMITTANCE RECEIPT DATED 05.06.2020 SHOEING REMITTANCE BEFORE THE BOARD IN THE NAME OF THE PETITONER ESTABLISMENT** - **EXHIBIT R5(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE REMITTANCE RECEIPT DATED 06.06.2020 SHOWING REMITTANCE BEFORE THE BOARD IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER ESTABLISHMENT** - **EXHIBIT R5(i) A TRUE COPY OF TH E REMITTANCCE RECEIPT DATED 10.06.2020 SHOWING REMITTANCE BEFORE THE BOARD IN THE** **23** ## **W.P.(C).No.16427/2020** **NAME OF THE PETITIONER ESTABLISHMENT.** **EXHIBIT R5(j)** **EXHIBIT R5(k)** **EXHIBIT R5(l)** **A TRUE COPY OF THE REMITTANCE RECEIPT DATED 13.06.2020 SHOWING REMITTANCE BEFORE THE BOARD IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER ESTABLISHMENT TRUE PHOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ENGAGEMENT OF MIGRANT WORKERS FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING WORK IN THE PETITIONER'S ESTABLISHMENT** **A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.02.2021**