Kaduveli Stores v. Inspector of Police, Paravur; District Police Chief, Ernakulam; Kerala State Head Load Workers Welfare Board; Assistant Labour Officer (A.L.O), North Paravur

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942** **W . P .(C) No.28915 OF 2020(L)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |||**KADUVELI STORES**| |---|---|---| |||**VEDIMARA, NORTH PARAVUR,**| |||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,**| |||**REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,**| |||**ANAS T.H., S/O.HASSAN PILLAI,**| |||**AGED 45 YEARS, 683520.**| |||**BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ**| |**DENT/S**|**:**|| |**1**||**YAKOOB**| |||**AGED 40 YEARS**| |||**S/O.SULTHAN, KANJIRAPARAMBIL,**| |||**VEDIMARA,**| |||**PARAVUR TALUK,**| |||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683520.**| |**2**||**ANISH,**| |||**AGED 38 YEARS**| |||**THOPPIL HOUSE, VEDIMARA,**| |||**PARAVUR TALUK,**| |||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683520.**| |**3**||**THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| |||**PARAVUR POLICE STATION,**| |||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683513.**| |**4**||**DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,**| |||**ERNAKULAM, ALUVA,**| |||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,**| |||**PIN-683101.**| |**5**||**THE KERALA STATE HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,**| |||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE,**| |||**ERNAKULAM-682018,**| |||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** W.P.(C) No.28915 OF 2020(L) 2 **6 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER (A.L.O), NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683513.** **R5 BY SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.28915 OF 2020(L) 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is engaged in the sale of provisional and allied products in wholesale and retail under the name and style, 'Kaduveli stores', with godown and shop situated at door No.9/325A of Mannam P.O., North Paravur. The petitioner has shifted to a new godown and shop situated at door No.10/311-2, Vedimara, North Paravur within the limits of North Paravur Municipality. The document marked as Ext.P1 is the licence dated 11.12.2020 issued by the North Paravur Municipality after the shifting of business. The petitioner, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent Inspector of Police and 4[th] respondent District Police Chief to afford proper and adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner, his employees and vehicles from the threat of respondents 1 and 2 and their men for loading and unloading work in the business establishment of the petitioner through his own permanent headload workers with identity cards issued under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, 1981. 2. On 22.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, notice before admission was ordered to respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 3, 4 and 6. W.P.(C) No.28915 OF 2020(L) 4 The learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 5[th] respondent. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has attached workers holding cards issued under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, and the establishment is not situated in an area, where the functional operation of the scheme has been extended. Having considered the submissions, this Court granted an interim order on 22.12.2020, directing the respondents 3 and 4 to afford proper and adequate police protection to the life and property of petitioner, his employees and vehicles from the threat of respondents 1 and 2 and their men for loading and unloading work in the business establishment of the petitioner through his own permanent headload workers with identity cards issued under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, 1981, for a period of three weeks. The said order was extended by one month by order dated 14.01.2021. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3, 4 and 6 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 1 and 2. W.P.(C) No.28915 OF 2020(L) 5 4. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation, powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter II of the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of the Act deals with general duties of Police. As per Section 3, the Police, as a service functioning category among the people as part of the administrative system shall, subject to the Constitution of India and the laws enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and protection of human rights. Section 4 of the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance with the law. 5. Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus; "In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. W.P.(C) No.28915 OF 2020(L) 6 Society for its defence needs a well-led, well-trained and welldisciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice. The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants." 6. In **Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary [(2014) 2 SCC 532]** the Apex Court held that, one of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in **Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470]** . 7. In **Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha [(1980) 2 SCC 593]** the Apex Court held that, the right to unionise, the right to strike as part of collective bargaining and subject to the legality and humanity of the situation, the right of the weaker group viz. labour, to pressure the stronger party viz. capital, to negotiate and render justice, are processes recognised by industrial jurisprudence and supported by Social Justice. While W.P.(C) No.28915 OF 2020(L) 7 society itself, in its basic needs of existence, may not be held to ransom in the name of the right to bargain and strikers must obey civilised norms in the battle and not be vulgar or violent hoodlums industry, represented by intransigent Managements, may well be made to reel into reason by the strike weapon and cannot then sequeal or wail and complain of loss of profits or other ill-effects but must negotiate or get a reference made. The broad basis is that workers are weaker although they are the producers and their struggle to better their lot has the sanction of the rule of law. Unions and strikers are no more conspiracies than professions and political parties, are, and being far weaker, need succour. Part IV of the Constitution, read with Article 19, sows the seed of this burgeoning jurisprudence. The Gandhian quote at the beginning of the judgment [Para.5 @ Page 603 SCC] sets the tone of economic equity in industry. Of course, adventurist, extremist, extraneously inspired and puerile strike, absurdly insane persistence and violent or scorched earth policies boomerang and are anathema for the law. Within these parameters the right to strike is integral to collective bargaining. 8. In **Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998 (2) KLT 732]** , in the context of the Section 21 of of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 and Rule 15 of the Kerala Headload Workers W.P.(C) No.28915 OF 2020(L) 8 Rules, 1981, which deals with settlement of disputes, a Full Bench of this Court held that, the Act and the Rules provide for a machinery for settlement of disputes between the employer and the worker. In the normal course, the dispute between the employer and the headload workers employed by him are to be settled in accordance with the machinery thus provided under the Statute, just like in the case of any other labour dispute being settled in accordance with the provisions contained under the relevant Statutes. But the fact that there is a machinery provided under the Act to settle the disputes between the parties cannot stand in the way of the employer seeking police protection when there is a law and order problem. When such an employer approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection of person and property of the employer as well as willing workers, this Court will be justified in granting direction to the police to give protection, if circumstances so warrant. One such consideration can be irreparable injury that would be suffered by the employer and/or the willing workers. There may be other circumstances also which would justify grant of such direction in the facts of a particular case. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the 5[th] respondent, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner’s establishment is W.P.(C) No.28915 OF 2020(L) 9 situated in an area where the functional operations of the scheme is not extended. 10. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that in case there is any threat to law and order or obstruction from respondents 1 and 2 and their men to the loading and unloading activities undertaken in the petitioner’s establishment with the help of registered workers, the 3[rd] respondent Inspector of Police shall render necessary police protection. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; - (i) The 3[rd] respondent Inspector of Police shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of respondents 1 and 2 and their men, in connection with the loading and unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment. - (ii) In case there any obstruction to loading and unloading activities undertaken in the petitioner’s establishment with the help of registered workers, from the side of respondents 1 and 2 and their men, the petitioner shall move the 3[rd] respondent Inspector of Police with a request for Police protection. - (iii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by W.P.(C) No.28915 OF 2020(L) 10 the petitioner, the 3[rd] respondent shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. No order as to costs. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** **MIN** W.P.(C) No.28915 OF 2020(L) 11 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF LICENCE FEE DATED 11.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, NORTH PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE HEADLOAD WORKER BY NAME PRABHATDOLAL ISSUED BY THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE HEAD LOAD WORKER BY NAME MUJEEB K.K. ISSUED BY THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT P4** - **TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE HEAD LOAD WORKER BY NAME LAKSHIKANTA PATAR ISSUED BY THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5** - **TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE HEAD LOAD WORKER BY NAME ABUHANIF ALI ISSUED BY THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6** - **TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE HEAD LOAD WORKER BY NAME ASHIKUL ISLAM ISSUED BY THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE HEAD LOAD WORKER BY NAME BALARAM JANA ISSUED BY THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P8** - **TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE HEAD LOAD WORKER BY NAME NIZAR P.A. ISSUED BY THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9** **TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SHOP AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT DATED 12.12.2019.** W.P.(C) No.28915 OF 2020(L) 12 **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIXTH RESPONDENT DATED 25.1.2020 GRANTING IDENTITY CARDS TO THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS OF PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.**