M/S Hillwood Home Work v. Kerala Head Load and General Workers Union (CITU) & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 16079 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** M/S HILLWOOD HOME WORK REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHAZ AHAMMED AGED 29 YEARS HEAD OFFICE AT EXCEL PLAZA, FEROKE, PETTA, CALICUT, KERALA AND SHOWROOM AT 37/3566A, A1, A2, AND A3 NEAR EDAPPALLY JUMA MASJID, CHERANELLOOR ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHAZ AHAMMED, AGED 29 YEARS, SON OF SHEREEF, THOOMBAPPADAM, FAROK P.O, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT , PIN - 673631 BY ADV P.M.ZIRAJ ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 KERALA HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU) POOL NUMBER 44, EDAPALLY REPRESENTED BY ITS POOL LEADER, POOL NO.44, CITU UNION, EDAPPALLY, PIN - 682024 2 THE KERALA STATE HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 682035 3 DISTRICT LABOR OFFICER CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030 4 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682026 5 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 682011 BY ADVS. V.P.PRASAD SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB BY SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN-SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.16079 OF 2022 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 5[th] day of July, 2022** ## This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: _“A) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 4 and 5 to afford proper and adequate police protection to the showroom of petitioner at Edappally and life of partners of petitioner, its supervisor, employees and properties of petitioner, Its vehicles and furniture from the threat of the first respondent and its members and their henchmen._ _B. Direct the respondents 4 and 5 to take proper and adequate preventive action against first respondent and its members and their henchmen, followers and hired goondas from causing any untoward incident against the partners of petitioner, his supervisor, employees and vehicles and blocking the works and business in the establishment”._ 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent as W.P.(C)No.16079 OF 2022 3 well as learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent Board. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is using the premises covered by Exhibit P1 rent deed as a display showroom for furniture cum office and that the furniture is supplied directly from the workshop of the petitioner at Feroke. It is submitted that the furniture is used only for display purposes and that the establishment of the petitioner does not come within the scope of item No.5 of the schedule to the Kerala Headload Workers Act as held by the larger Bench of this Court in **Teresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police** [2015 KLT 485]. It is, therefore, contended that since the loading unloading work in the establishment is completely casual in nature and which occurs only occasionally, the petitioner is not duty bound to engage the W.P.(C)No.16079 OF 2022 4 registered workers even if the area is a scheme covered area. On these allegations, the petitioner seeks police protection for the carrying out of the activities without obstruction from the members of the 1[st] respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits on instructions that though a representation has been submitted before the police by the petitioner, no dispute of any manner has been raised before the DLO, either by the petitioner or by the 1[st] respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent submits that the area in question is a scheme covered area and in case loading and unloading activity is to be carried out in the premises, the petitioner has to engage either his own permanent registered workers or the registered headload workers. W.P.(C)No.16079 OF 2022 5 6. The first respondent has placed a detailed counter affidavit on record. It is contended that when the petitioner had denied work to the members of the 1[st] respondent, the matter was taken up before the 2[nd] respondent and that the petitioner had deployed his staff and some other north indian workers for unloading the furniture. It is stated that the petitioner does not have headload workers and workers in the showroom do not have registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules and as such the petitioner has to engage pool workers having due registration for carrying out the loading and unloading work. It is submitted that the contentions of the petitioner with regard to the activity in the establishment is disputed. It is stated that the petitioner's allegations with regard to obstruction or threat by the members of the 1[st] respondent is completely unsupported by any W.P.(C)No.16079 OF 2022 6 material and that the respondents have not obstructed or threatened the petitioner and have only raised a claim in view of the fact that loading unloading work is going on in the premises which, according to them, is an establishment covered under the schedule. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the fact that the petitioner contends that the establishment does not come under item No.5 of the schedule to the Kerala Headload Workers Act as provided under Section 2(d) of the Act, the respondents cannot obstruct the activity of the petitioner. However, in case the respondents have any dispute with regard to the nature of the establishment, the same has to be duly raised before the competent officer under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. In the above view of the matter, subject to the right of the W.P.(C)No.16079 OF 2022 7 members of the 1[st] respondent Union, to raise a dispute under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, which will be considered in accordance with law by the appropriate authority, this writ petition is disposed of directing that in case of any illegal obstruction by the 1[st] respondent or anybody claiming through them, appropriate protection shall be granted by the 4[th] respondent. All contentions on the merits of the matter including the nature of the establishment and the activity being conducted therein are left open to be decided in the appropriate proceedings. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** SSK/05 /07 W.P.(C)No.16079 OF 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN EXHIBIT P1 PETITIONER AND EDAPPALLY MAHAL JAMATH COMMITTEE AND PETITIONER DATED 24-11-2021 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF OBSTRUCTION CREATING BY THE EXHIBIT P2 MEMBERS OF FIRST RESPONDENT IN THE SHOWROOM OF PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT P3 PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 11.05.2022 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FOURTH EXHIBIT P4 RESPONDENT REGARDING RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED EXHIBIT- P5 BY THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION TO THE EMPLOYEES OF PETITIONER DATED 10.5.2022 TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND RETURN EXHIBIT- P6 OF THE PETITIONER ESTABLISHMENT DATED 13.04.2022 SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE