High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2017-12-21Disposed of with directions

Johnson K Zachariah v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P(C).No.29506 of 2017 (K)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Ashok Menon
Judgment Date: 2017-12-21
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed: the court directs police to ensure no obstruction to the petitioner’s work, restrict engagement to those listed in Exhibit P13 muster roll, and orders the Deputy Labour Officer to proceed under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 expeditiously. The petitioner shall bear costs; parties advised to pursue statutory remedies for status determinations.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Johnson K Zachariah

Respondents

The State of Kerala
Deputy Inspector General, South Zone
The District Collector, Pathanamthitta
The Superintendent of Police, Rural, Pathanamthitta
The Superintendent of Police, Rural, Kollam
The Sub Inspector of Police, Pathanapuram
District Labour Officer, Punalur
Assistant Labour Officer, Punalur
Vanijya Vyavasaya Mazdoor Sangh (affiliated to BMS)
Mohan an
Sajukum ar K.N.
Muraleedharan
Sudheesh
Adarsh Unnithan
Anil
Sunil
Viswanathan
Muruka Prasad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
• SMT.R.RANJINI
• SRI.M.ASHOK KINI

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.P.P.THAJUDDIN
• SRI.P.C.CHACKO
• SRI.SHYAM PADMAN
• SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR
• SMT.REJITHA RAJAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

Johnson K Zachariah filed W.P.(C).No.29506 of 2017 before the Kerala High Court seeking police protection to prevent obstruction by respondents 9–18, who are claimed to be loading and unloading workers engaged by contractors in the petitioner’s gas agency operation. The petitioner contends that he employs three staff and eight drivers/delivery personnel (Exhibit P4 and Muster Roll Exhibit P13) and that obstruction by the contractor’s workers would disrupt the public utility service of distributing LPG cylinders. The respondents counter that respondents 10–18 are their employees, and assert that the petitioner has discharged or displaced them; they rely on Exhibit R9(b), an inspection report by the Assistant Labour Officer, to support their status as workers of the petitioner. The central dispute is whether respondents 10–18 are employees of the petitioner and whether the petitioner’s establishment falls under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (Kerala). The court notes the status issue is disputed and refrains from deciding it, citing Kunju Mohammed v. Labour Officer and Another to illustrate the approach of giving welfare-legislation a purposive, protective construction. It directs police to ensure no obstruction to the petitioner’s work, confines engagement to those listed in Exhibit P13, and orders the Deputy Labour Officer to proceed expeditiously under the Act. The writ petition is disposed with costs to be borne by the parties.

Provisions of Law Cited

Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (Kerala)Section 11 of the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960Right to Information Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Purposive/beneficial construction of welfare legislation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the LPG distribution business is a public utility service and must operate without unlawful obstruction. Respondents 10–18 are claimed not to be employees, as the petitioner maintains; status disputes should be resolved through statutory mechanisms rather than coercive obstruction. The petitioner relies on the muster roll (Exhibit P13) to show the approved workforce and contends that welfare legislation (Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960) governs the establishment. They urge police protection to ensure uninterrupted operation, reference prior notices and complaints (Exhibits P6–P11), and request the Deputy Labour Officer to advance proceedings under the Act with expedition. They emphasize safety and public-interest concerns and seek that only workers listed in Exhibit P13 be engaged in operations until a final resolution of employee status.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend they are employees of the petitioner and that their rights to wages and benefits arise under labour statutes. They rely on Exhibit R9(b), the Assistant Labour Officer’s report, to support their status. They allege unlawful termination or replacement, and urge that police protection should not shield actions contrary to workers’ rights. They insist the Deputy Labour Officer should determine status through proper statutory channels, and they argue for ventilation of grievances through statutory forums rather than prohibiting workers from entering premises. They also invoke welfare goals but emphasize balancing workers’ rights with the petitioner’s operations, arguing for prompt adjudication of status and for remedies available under the Act rather than blanket protection that could impede legal protections for employees.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kunju Mohammed v. Labour Officer and Another	1975 KLT 448	Positive	Cited to support purposive/beneficial interpretation of welfare legislation and enforcement measures in the context of the Act.

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 Johnson K Zachariah v. State of Kerala and Others 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939** ## **W.P(C).No.29506 of 2017 (K)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):-** ## **---------------** **JOHNSON K ZACHARIAH, S/O.IDICHERIYA YOHANAN, AGED 56, KALLUVATTAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KALLUMKADAVU, PATHANAPURAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJINI SRI.M.ASHOK KINI** ## **RESPONDENT(S):-** ## **----------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** ## **2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL,** **SOUTH ZONE, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM RURAL-691001.** **3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.** **4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RURAL, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.** **5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RURAL, KOLLAM-691001.** **6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAPURAM-689695.** **7. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION, PUNALUR-691305.** **8. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PUNALUR-691305.** **9. VANIJYA VYAVASAYA MAZDOOR SANGH, (AFFILIATED TO BMS NO.KL/75) REG. NO.354/81, H.O.MAZDOOR BHAVAN, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM-691001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.** **- 2 -** **W.P(C).No.29506 of 2017 (K)** **10. MOHANAN, RAJI BHAVAN, NADUKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM P.O.-689695.** **11. SAJUKUMAR K.N., S/O.NEELAKANDA PILLAI, SAJU BHAVANAM, KUNDASSANADU P.O.-689512.** **12. MURALEEDHARAN, JAWAHAR COLONY, MANJALLOOR P.O., PATHANAPURAM-689695.** **13. SUDHEESH, SREEKRISHNA VILASAM, PANAMPATTA, AVANEESHWARAM-691625.** **14. ADARSH UNNITHAN, AAKKAL VEEDU, AVANEESHWARAM-691508.** **15. ANIL, CHARIVULLA PUTHENVEEDU, PATHIRICKAL P.O., PATHANAPURAM-689695.** **16. SUNIL,** - **KASHI NIVAS, MANJALLOR, PATHANAPURAM-689695.** **17. VISWANATHAN, SREEKRISHNA VILASAM, MAVOOR P.O., ELAMANOOR-691524.** **18. MURUKA PRASAD, SUDHA MANDIRAM, MANJAKKALA P.O., AVANEESHWARAM-691508.** **R1 TO R8 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDDIN. R9-R18 BY ADVS.SRI.P.C.CHACKO** **SRI.SHYAM PADMAN** **SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR** **SMT.REJITHA RAJAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P(C).No.29506 of 2017 (K)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 12/05/1986. EXHIBIT P2- THE PHOTOCOPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE D & O LICENCE, DATED 11/05/2017.** **EXHIBIT P4- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIST OF EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE AND THE POSTAL COVER CONTAINING NOTICE.** **EXHIBIT P6- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 06/09/2017.** **EXHIBIT P7- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P6.** **EXHIBIT P8- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P6, BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07/09/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07/09/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11- THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LOCKED GATE OF THE GODOWN PREMISES, THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P12 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF SERVICE RECORDS OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P13 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MUSTER ROLL FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2017, IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P14 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DT.13.09.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P15 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REP;LY DT.13.09.2017. EXHIBIT P16 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DT.15.09.2017 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P17 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.16.09.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P18 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE POLICE STATION, PATHANAPURAM.** **W.P(C).No.29506 of 2017 (K)** ## **- 2 -** **EXHIBIT P19 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR DT.20.09.2017 REGISTERED BY THE PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION.** **EXHIBIT P20 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 27.09.2017.** **EXHIBIT P21 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXPLANATION DT.31.10.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P22 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DT.28.10.2017.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-------------------------** **EXHIBIT R9(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTTION DTD.15.8.2017. EXHIBIT R9(b) TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT R9(c) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BANNER TIED ON THE GATE OF THE PETITIONER'S PREMISES. EXHIBIT R9(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.09.2017. EXHIBIT R9(e) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT FOR SETTLEMENT TALKS. EXHIBIT R9(f) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT FOR SETTLEMENT TALKS. EXHIBIT R9(g) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.27.09.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R9(h) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.10.2017. EXHIBIT R9(i) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.6.10.2017 FILED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R9(j) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.10.2017 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R9(k) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.10.2017 BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM. EXHIBIT R9(l) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.13.10.2017. Vku/[ true copy ]** ## K. Vinod Chandran & Ashok Menon, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29506 of 2017-K ------------------------------------------------------Dated, this the 21[st] day of December, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Vinod Chandran, J: The petitioner is before this Court seeking police protection against the illegal obstruction caused by respondents 9 to 18. The petitioner contends that the petitioner is employing 3 office staff and 8 employees in the capacity as driver/delivery boy; who are shown in Exhibit P4 list and Exhibit P13 muster roll of the petitioner maintained under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (Kerala) [for brevity “Act of 1960”]. The petitioner contends that the respondents 10 to 18 are loading and unloading workers of the transporting contractors, who have been demanding minimum wages and bonus from the petitioner. 2. The submission with respect to the status of respondents 10 to 18 is stoutly denied by the party respondents, who have filed a detailed counter affidavit. They assert that they are also employees of the petitioner. When they raised some demands, they were sent out of employment and under the guise of police protection, they are sought to be terminated. The party respondents WP(C) No.29506 of 2017 - 2 - also would rely on Exhibit R9(b), a report prepared by the Assistant Labour Officer, Punalur, who inspected the premises of the petitioner on 18.08.2017 at 10.45 a.m. It is stated that those persons shown in the report are all employees of the petitioner. 3. We are not called upon to decide the status of the respondents 10 to 18, which is the core of the dispute raised herein. While the petitioner asserts that they are not employees of the petitioner, the party respondents assert otherwise. It is also admitted that the petitioner's gas agency is covered under the Act of 1960. The learned Counsel for the party respondents would place reliance on the decision in _**Kunju Mohammed v. Labour Officer and Another**_ **[1975 KLT 448]** to contend that the Courts would be justified in straining the language for achieving the purpose of legislation, especially a welfare legislation. 4. In _**Kunju Mohammed,**_ the question raised was only a display of a notice specifying the day of weekly closure by the proprietor of a firm who was under an obligation so to do, as enjoined by Section 11 of the Act of 1960. The proprietor of the firm had taken up a contention that he is not bound to exhibit notice as stipulated in WP(C) No.29506 of 2017 - 3 - Section 11 and that there are not employees working under him. A penal proceeding was initiated by the authorities. It was in such circumstance the Court held that any tactics to circumvent or defeat the provisions of a welfare legislation should be met with a strong hand. The penal proceedings initiated by the authority under the Act was directed to be proceeded with. 5. In the present case, but for an initial report of the Assistant Labour Officer acting under the provisions of the Act of 1960 we do not see any further proceedings taken. The Assistant Labour Officer is entitled to proceed with the same. The respondents 10 to 18 would also be entitled to assert their rights as employees before the appropriate forum. However they cannot, in the meanwhile, obstruct the work carried on by the petitioner. What is permitted only is a peaceful agitation and initiation of appropriate legal proceeding, which the party respondents have not done till today. Hence, leaving open the party respondents to approach the appropriate authorities to ventilate their grievances the writ petition would stand disposed of directing the police to ensure that no obstruction of the work of the petitioner is caused, especially since WP(C) No.29506 of 2017 - 4 - the petitioner is carrying on a public utility service of distribution of Liquefied Petroleum Gas cylinders. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not engage any persons other than that in Exhibit P13 muster roll. The Deputy Labour Officer, Punalur, before whom the proceedings initiated by the party respondents under the Act of 1960 are pending, shall be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible. Ordered accordingly. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs. Sd/K.Vinod Chandran Judge Sd/Ashok Menon Judge vku/- [ true copy ]