M/S A ONE FURNITURE & Ors. v. Sub Inspector of Police, District Police Chief, Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), Bharathiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), Assistant Labour Officer, District Labour Officer & Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 8961 of 2016** **-----------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)** - **-------------** - **1 M/S.A ONE FURNITURE, VIII/145A, AROOR, CHERTHALA,** **REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR ZAKARIYA,AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, ZAFEER MANZIL, VADUTHALA KARA, AROOKUTTY, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** - **2 SHAMSUDDIN S.A.,AGED 39 YEARS,** **S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY, SHAMSU MANZIL, AROOKUTTY P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK.** **3 P.J.MANUEL,AGED 31 YEARS,** - **S/O.JACOB, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAMBAIMOOLA, EDAKOCHI.** - **4 P.R.JITHIN JITHU,AGED 24 YEARS,** - **S/O.P.P. RAMANAN, PUTHANKARI HOUSE, SOUTH CHELLANAM P.O.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY** **SRI.R.PARAMESWARA IYER** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AROOR, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.PIN 688534** **2. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,** - **ALAPPPUZHA PIN 688001** **3. CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS (CITU), AROOR UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.T.PRADEEPAN, CITU OFFICE, AROOR, CHERTHALA PIN 688534.** **4. INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS(INTUC),** - **AROOR UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.R. SOMAKUMAR, INTUC OFFICE, AROOR P.O., CHERTHALA PIN 688534** **5. BHARATHIYA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), AROOR UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANIL POLLAT, BMS OFFICE, AROOR, CHERTHALA PIN 688534** **6. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, CHERTHALA NORTH, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN 688534** **WP(C).No. 8961 of 2016 (U)** **-------------------------** **7. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,** - **ALAPPUZHA, DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA PIN 688001** - **ADDL R8 IMPLEADED** **8. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,** **ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **ADDL R8 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 13/3/2018.** **R1,R2,R6 & R7 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.P.THAJUDHEEN R3 & R4 BY ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN ADDL.R8 BY ADV.KOSHY GEORGE, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **K.V.** **WP(C).No. 8961 of 2016 (U) -------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** - **P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER KERALA VAT RULES DATED 10/05/2007** - **P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER KERALA VAT RULES DATED 03/09/2015** - **P2- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY AROOKUTTY PANCHAYATH DATED 27/03/2015** **P2(t)-TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-P2** **P3- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE AROOR PANCHYATH DATED 31/08/2015** **P3(t)-TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-P3** - **P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/01/2016 OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, CHERTHALA NORTH** **P4(t)-TRUE TRANSLATON OF EXHIBIT-P4** **P5(a)-TRUE COPY OF THE ALO IDENTITY CARD OF YOONUS KUNJU D.M.** **P5(b)-TRUE COPY OF THE ALO IDENTITY CRD OF SHAMSUDEEN S.A.** **P5(c)-TRUE COPY OF THE ALO IDENTITY CARD OF ABDUL RAZAK T.M.** **P5(d)-TRUE COPY OF THE ALO IDENTITY CRD OF MANUEL P.J.** **P5(e)-TRUE COPY OF THE ALO IDENTITY CARD OF JITHIN JITHU P.R.** **P6(a)-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 25/02/2016** **P6(b)-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 25/02/2016** **P6(c)-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 25/02/2016** **P7- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/03/2016** **P(t) TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7.** - **P7(a)-TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED RECEIPT NO.19 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT AND POSTAL RECEIPT RECEIVED FOR SENDING EXHIBIT P7 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **P7(a)(t)-TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7(a)** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **--------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 9.04.2018** _**“C.R.”**_ ## K.VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 8961 of 2016 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2018 ## J U D G M E N T ## Ashok Menon, J. The petitioners are before us seeking police protection against party respondents 3 to 6 for allegedly interfering with the loading and unloading work by petitioners 2 to 4 in the furniture manufacturing unit and showroom belonging to the 1[st] petitioner. 2. The 1[st] petitioner's proprietorship is engaged in manufacturing furniture and selling them in the name and style 'A One Furniture'. It is stated that the manufacturing unit is situated at Naduvath Nagar, Arookutty and the show room for displaying the furniture manufactured is situated at Aroor on Cherthala-Aroor N.H.Byepass. The registration obtained for the unit under the Kerala VAT Rules is Ext.P1 series. The licence issued by the Panchayat is Ext.P2. A licence was separately issued for the show room situated at Aroor, and that is Ext.P3. The furniture manufactured in the unit will have to be loaded and unloaded at both the places. The 1[st] _WP(C) 8961/2016_ 2 petitioner is engaging his own workers for the headload work, which includes loading and unloading of timber, moving of logs, cutting timber and furniture, loading and unloading inside and outside the factory, as well as loading finished furniture to the show room and then unloading them at the show room for being displayed and then delivered it to the customers. Utmost care and caution is required for the work to be done in the business premises of the 1[st] petitioner. Otherwise, there is every likelihood that the furniture may get damaged, and that is the reason why he has engaged his own workers for such work. The 1[st] petitioner has registered workers of his own under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 and they have been issued with Ext.P5 series identity cards by the Assistant Labour Officer as per Ext.P4 order. Altogether, he has five workers, who have been issued identity cards. For the purpose of new show room at Aroor, the 1[st] petitioner requires the services of three of his registered workers, who are petitioners 2 to 4. He issued notice to them as per Ext.P6 series and they are all willing and happy to work in the show room. However, when they are engaged in the loading and unloading work _WP(C) 8961/2016_ 3 at the show room of the 1[st] petitioner, a group of people belonging to three different unions, represented by respondents 3 to 5 obstructed the work. They insisted that only workers from the pool are permitted to do the headload work in the area where the show room is situated. The business of the 1[st] petitioner was thus interrupted and a complaint was made before the 1[st] respondent as Ext.P7, which did not yield any result. The 1[st] petitioner and other workers are depending for their livelihood on the work of the furniture show room and the petitioners were left with no other option but to approach this Court. The petitioners seek protection from the party respondents 3 to 5. 3. The Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board is impleaded as additional 6[th] respondent. An interim order was passed by this Court on 09-03-2016 directing the 1[st] respondent to ensure that no obstruction is caused by respondents 3 to 5 in the matter relating to loading and unloading work being carried on by the 1[st] petitioner through his registered workers, whose identity cards are produced as Ext.P5 series. _WP(C) 8961/2016_ 4 4. It is an undisputed fact that the 1[st] petitioner's manufacturing unit is situated in a non-Scheme covered area, while his showroom is situated in a scheme covered area. As per the provisions of Rule 26A of the Rules, the employer is at liberty to engage his own workers for the loading and unloading work, whether it is a scheme covered area or not. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decision of this Court in Eastern Condiments (P) Ltd. v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2012 (3) KLT 58 , wherein it is held that as long as there are permanent headload workers for the establishment, irrespective of the area to which they belong to, they can carry on such work without reference to the area as long as it is for the establishment. The Counsel also relies on the decision reported in Cresent Trading Company v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2009 (3) KLT 16 , wherein it was held that where an establishment has registered headload workers, they have right to perform the duties attached to that shop even outside the premises of the establishment. Reliance is also placed on the decisions reported in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police, 1998 (2) KLT 732 (FB) and Theresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2015 (1) KLT 485 (LB) . _WP(C) 8961/2016_ 5 5. The argument of the learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 5 is that, the showroom of the 1[st] petitioner is situated in a scheme covered area having its own pool of workers, and hence, the 1[st] petitioner has no option but to employ persons from that pool, and cannot carry his registered workers from the non-scheme covered area to work in the new showroom, where they have no registration. 6. Considering the facts of this case and the catena of decisions on the subject, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners are at liberty to get the work of loading and unloading concerning the 1[st] petitioner's unit both at Arookutty and at Aroor done through the workers deployed by the 1[st] petitioner, who have obtained registration under Section 26A of the Act. 7. In Pareeth v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2003 (2) KLT 128, the issue that came up for consideration was whether the employer who shifted his business premises to another Panchayat could continue to deploy the same workers registered previously with him, in his new premises. It was held thus; “Mr. Gopalakrishna Kurup contends that the three workers mentioned in the Original Petition require fresh _WP(C) 8961/2016_ 6 registration under the Scheme for employment in Erattupetta Grama Panchayat. However, the learned counsel is not able to point out any provision in the Scheme which requires fresh registration under the Scheme for permanent attached workers holding identity cards issued under R.26A(3) of the Rules. Since the petitioner has admitted that the three workers mentioned in the Original Petition are his permanent attached workers, in our view, they do not require any fresh registration under the Scheme. In this context, it is also pertinent to note the difference between the identity card issued in Form C under the Scheme and the identity card issued in Form XI under R.26A of the Rules. In the former, there is no column for the name and address of the employer, whereas, in the latter, Column No.6 is for entering the name and address of the employer. It is clear that the identity card issued in Form C under Para 6A(3) of the Scheme is not for a permanent attached worker of a particular employer. In fact, Para 6A of the Scheme provides that at the commencement of a Scheme in any area, a headload worker who is not permanently employed by an employer or a contractor and who is registered under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules may submit his application in Form A to the Convener of the Committee concerned for registration in the Committee under the Scheme along with two passport size photographs. It means that registration under Para 6A of the Scheme is not necessary in the case of a headload worker who is permanently employed by an employer or a contractor. Since the three workers mentioned in the Original Petition are stated to be the permanent workers of the petitioner and since they have already obtained registration under R.26A of the Rules, they do not require any further registration under Para 6A of the Scheme.” _WP(C) 8961/2016_ 7 8. The petitioners 2 to 4 are headload workers registered as regular workers under the 1[st] petitioner. The fact that the employer has another work place cannot be a reason to deny employment to the headload workers already engaged by him. The headload workers registered under Rule 26A cannot be asked to have themselves re-registered in another place merely for the reason that their employer has started an additional place of work elsewhere. The party respondents 3 to 5 cannot in any way cause any obstruction to the work carried on by petitioners 2 to 4, who are all registered workers of the 1[st] petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the 1[st] respondent to provide adequate and effective protection to enable the petitioners to get the loading and unloading work in the business premises of the 1[st] petitioner done by petitioners 2 to 4, in whose favour identity cards have been issued under Rule 26A of the Rules. If there is any obstruction by the party respondents 3 to 5 or their supporters, the 1[st] respondent shall take prompt and effective action to remove such obstruction and to give necessary protection _WP(C) 8961/2016_ 8 to the petitioners for the smooth functioning of the 1[st] petitioner's establishment. No costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Sd/ASHOK MENON Judge dkr