High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with directions

M/S KALLENS GRANITES & TILES DOOR NO. VI, 548, ALANGADU P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683511, Represented by its Managing Partner, Finix Varghese v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.5646 OF 2021(E)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date
2021-03-31
Court Decision / Holding
The petitioner’s writ petition is disposed of with directions: (i) The 2nd respondent (police) shall ensure there is no law-and-order disruption during loading/unloading with mechanized devices; (ii) If there is any threat to life, the petitioner may approach the 2nd respondent SHO with a request for police protection, which shall be considered promptly; (iii) Any requirement for manual labour shall be met by engaging pool workers if no registered headload workers with identity cards under Rule 26A are available; (iv) If manual labour is required in scheme-area, the petitioner shall engage pool workers; and (v) the 2nd respondent shall act in accordance with statutory provisions and decisions cited.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with directions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M/S KALLENS GRANITES & TILES DOOR NO. VI, 548, ALANGADU P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683511, Represented by its Managing Partner, Finix Varghese

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to the Department of Home Affairs, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Circle Inspector of Police, Aluva West Police Station (address corrected)
  • CITU Malikampeedika Unit represented by its Convener
  • Additional Head Load Workers Welfare Board (Addl. R4) represented by its Chief Executive

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri A.T. Anilkumar
  • • Smt. V. Shylaja

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Jestin Mathew (Government Pleader)
  • • Sri S. Krishna Moorthy (SC, KHWWB)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in trading marble, granite and ceramic tiles, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus to the Circle Inspector of Police to provide adequate police protection for loading and unloading activities using mechanical devices (forklift) in its premises. The grievance is threat/obstruction by members of the 3rd respondent union (Headload Workers) during such activities. Ext.P3 photographs evidence mechanized loading; Ext.P4 is a complaint dated 23.02.2021. The matter involves a scheme-area under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, and the petitioner asserts a right to operate with machinery without interference. The court examines the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (Sections 3 and 4) outlining police duties to maintain peace and protect rights, and cites decisions of the Supreme Court and Kerala HC: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary and Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra to underscore police protection as a fundamental duty; Akbar P. v. Sub Inspector of Police, Nilambur Police Station (2015) (2) KHC 523) for guidelines in scheme-covered areas requiring registered workers for headload labour and that mechanized work should not be obstructed. The court directs that police protection be provided and outlines steps for protection requests and the use of registered or pool workers if manual labour is needed, disposing the petition with directions to ensure law and order while permitting mechanized loading.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 3 (General duties)Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 4 (Functions of Police)Constitution of India - Article 226Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 - Section 9A (1) (2)Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 - Rule 26A

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Due Process of Law (as described by Lord Denning)
  • Protection of life, liberty and property
  • Police must enforce the law impartially and protect human rights and dignity

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends for mandamus to the Circle Inspector of Police to provide adequate police protection for loading/unloading activities conducted with mechanical devices (forklift) in its establishment, asserting a right to operate without intimidation from the 3rd respondent union. It relies on the Kerala Police Act to justify state protection and cites relevant decisions to stress the police’s protective role over life and property, including the use of mechanized loading in a scheme-area under the Headload Workers Act.

Contentions of Respondents

The 3rd respondent union is heard to oppose obstruction to loading/unloading; the 4th respondent Board’s position, noting the scheme-covered area, emphasizes that headload work should be performed by registered workers. The government pleader for respondents 1 and 2 submits the legal framework; the 3rd respondent did not appear on admission. The respondents argue that if work is mechanized, obstruction is not permissible and any dispute may require addressing through Labour Officers; the court, however, frames the relief as protective rather than prohibitive, pending further enforcement.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary[(2014) 2 SCC 532]PositiveCited to underscore police responsibility in protecting life, liberty and property.
Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra[(2019) 15 SCC 470]PositiveUsed to reinforce police duty in investigation and protection of rights.
Akbar P. v. Sub Inspector of Police, Nilambur Police Station and others[2015 (2) KHC 523]PositiveApplied to support the view that mechanized loading in a scheme-area cannot be obstructed and must involve registered workers where applicable.

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 M/S KALLENS GRANITES & TILES DOOR NO. VI, 548, ALANGADU P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683511, Represented by its Managing Partner, Finix Varghese v. State of Kerala & 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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.5646 OF 2021(E)** ## **PETITIONER :** **M/S KALLENS GRANITES & TILES DOOR NO. VI, 548, ALANGADU P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683511, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, FINIX VARGHESE, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, PUTHUVA HOUSE, MALAYIDAMTHURUTHU.** **BY ADVS. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001. * 2 [CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAPURAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683511.] THE ADDRESS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS C.I.OF POLICE, ALUVA WEST POLICE STATION, ALUVA, PIN - 683511, AS PER ORDER DATED 31.03.2021 IN IA 2/2021 IN WP(C) NO. 5646/2021. 3 CITU MALIKAMPEEDIKA UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, MALIKAM PEEDIKA, ALUVA - PARUR ROAD, MALIKAMPEEDIKA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683511.** -2- WP(C).No.5646 OF 2021(E) ***ADDL. R4 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD S.R.M.ROAD, ERNAKULAM PIN-682018, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE. ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05.03.2021 IN IA 1/2021 IN WPC NO.5646/2021. R1 & 2 BY SRI JESTIN MATHEW- GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- WP(C).No.5646 OF 2021(E) ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, which is a partnership firm engaged in the trading of marble, granite and ceramic tiles, etc, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner and its employees for conducting its activities of loading and unloading of marbles, granite pieces and ceramic tiles, by using mechanical devices, in the premises of the petitioner, from being objected, obstructed or interdicted by the members of the 3[rd] respondent union. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is doing loading and unloading activities in the establishment by mechanical devices, namely, fork lift, as evident from Ext.P3 series of photographs. The grievance of the petitioner is threat/ obstruction caused by the headload workers, who are members of the 3[rd] respondent Union, in the loading and unloading activities undertaken in its establishment with the help of mechanical devices. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint dated 23.02.2021 before the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter, moved this writ petition before this Court seeking -4- WP(C).No.5646 OF 2021(E) the aforesaid relief. 2. On 04.03.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the petitioner was directed to file an application to implead the Headload Workers Welfare Board as an additional respondent, after serving copy to the learned Standing Counsel. 3. On 05.03.2021, this Court allowed I.A.No.1 of 2021 filed by the petitioner, whereby the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board was impleaded as the additional 4[th] respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the additional 4[th] respondent submitted that the area, in which the petitioner's establishment is situated is a Scheme covered area. The learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel took notice on admission for the additional 4[th] respondent. This Court issued urgent notice on admission by special messenger to the 3[rd] respondent, returnable by 09.03.2021. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and -5- WP(C).No.5646 OF 2021(E) 2 and also the learned counsel for the additional 4[th] respondent. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 3[rd] respondent. 5. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for police protection, from any threat being caused by the headload workers, who are members of the 3[rd] respondent union, to the loading and unloading activities in its establishment by engaging fork lift and other mechanical devices. 6. 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 -6- ## WP(C).No.5646 OF 2021(E) 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. 7. 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. Society for its defence needs a well-led, welltrained and well-disciplined 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." WP(C).No.5646 OF 2021(E) -7- 8. 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]** . 9. Section 9A of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 deals with engaging the services of headload workers. As per sub-section (1) of Section 9A, subject to the provisions of this Act, an employer shall engage a headload worker registered under the Act in connection with the work of his establishment. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 9A, in the case of works which require assistance of skilled persons and which are to be done with due diligence or require the aid of machinery, such works may be done by engaging the persons having such skill or by the machinery, as the case may be. As per sub-section (2) of Section 9A, -8- ## WP(C).No.5646 OF 2021(E) every headload worker shall be entitled to wages as prescribed by the Government under the provisions of this Act only if their services have been engaged by the employer or the owner of an establishment. 10. In **Akbar P. v. Sub Inspector of Police, Nilambur Police Station and others [2015 (2) KHC 523]** , a Division Bench of this Court held that when an establishment is situated in a scheme covered area the loading and unloading work can be undertaken only through registered workers. If loading and unloading work is done by mechanised devices, no one can obstruct the same. On the facts of the said case, the Division Bench held that if the party respondents have a case that while doing loading and unloading work by mechanised devices, the petitioner is engaging any other person for loading and unloading, they have to approach the concerned Labour Officer by claiming work. On the other hand, if the entire work is being done by mechanised devices, the party respondents and their men cannot demand loading and unloading work nor they can obstruct the loading work being done by the petitioner. -9- WP(C).No.5646 OF 2021(E) Paragraph 5 and also the last paragraph of that decision read thus; “5. Having regard to the submissions, it is not in dispute that the area in question is a Scheme covered area under the Headload Workers Act. The petitioner can do loading and unloading work only through the registered workers. The petitioner has a case that presently he is doing his work through cranes and by employing his own workers. It is needless to say that if loading and unloading work is being done by mechanised devices, no one cannot obstruct the same. If the party respondents have a case that while doing so, the petitioner is engaging any other person for loading and unloading, they have to approach the concerned Labour Officer by claiming work. If the entire work is being done by mechanised devices, the party respondents and their men cannot demand loading and unloading work nor can they obstruct the loading work being done by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, reserving the right of the party respondents to approach the District Labour Officer, the writ petition is disposed of as under; The first respondent shall ensure that no law and order situation arises while the work of loading and unloading work is done using mechanised devices. -10- ## WP(C).No.5646 OF 2021(E) If any manual labour is required for loading work the petitioner shall engage only registered workers.” Having considered the averments in the writ petition and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; (i) The 2[nd] respondent shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of the 3[rd] respondent or its members, in connection with the loading and unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment using fork lift or other mechanical devices. (ii) In case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner or the workers engaged by them, from the side of the 3[rd] respondent or its members, the petitioner shall move the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer with a request for Police protection. (iii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioner, the 2[nd] 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. (iv) In case there is any requirement for manual labourers for loading and unloading activities, the -11- WP(C).No.5646 OF 2021(E) petitioner has to engage the pool workers, in case he is not having registered headload workers having identity cards issued under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/3/4 -12- WP(C).No.5646 OF 2021(E) ## **APPENDIX** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE ALANGADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 01.04.2020. EXHIBIT R2 TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 22.01.2019. EXHIBIT R3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE MACHINERIS. EXHIBIT R4 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.02.2021 ALONG WITH RECEIPT. EXHIBIT R5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2015(2) KHC 523.**