High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-11-18Writ petition allowed; interim protection order...

P. J. Joseph v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 21177 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2021-11-18
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; interim order dated 06.10.2021 confirmed; SHO directed to ensure that law and order is maintained in the petitioner’s business area and that no breach of peace is allowed by any party, including the respondent unions or their affiliates.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; interim protection order confirmed; SHO to maintain law and order in the petitioner's business area and prevent breach of peace by any party in future.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. J. Joseph

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Thiruvananthapuram 695001
The Station House Officer, East Police Station, Kollam 691001
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Kollam 691001
The District Labour Officer, Civil Station, Kollam 691013
Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board - KHWWB represented by its District Committee, Ushus Building, Chamakkada, Kollam 691001
Bharathiya Masdoor Sangh (BMS), Beach Road, Kollam-691001
Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), Beach Road, Kollam-691001
Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), Beach Road, Kollam-691001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. B. Sahasranaman

Counsels for Respondents

• K. Siju
• Sri. E. C. Bineesh (GP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

P. J. Joseph, who runs an electrical and electronic shop named “Jose Electricals” in Kollam, filed this writ petition alleging obstructive conduct by unions and their associates (respondents 6–8) during loading and unloading of goods at his premises. The goods in question are delicate electrical and electronic items such as LED panels, LED tubes, mini circuit breakers, switches, water heaters, air conditioners, air coolers, mixers, fans, fittings and lamp shades, which require trained personnel for handling. The petitioner contends that past careless handling by headload workers caused substantial losses, evidenced by his Exhibits P1 and P2, and he sought protection and permission to employ his own permanent staff for loading/unloading to avoid damage. He also relies on a previous finding in A. Balakrishnan’s case that such articles are incapable of being handled by untrained personnel and therefore should be handled by trained workers. The State and other respondents contend that the area falls under a welfare scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, though the Welfare Board conceded that if the articles are delicate, the petitioner may be entitled to use his own workers as per the declarations in Balakrishnan’s case. The court noted service of summons to respondents 6–8 and, after considering the arguments and absence of counter-pleas, allowed the writ petition, confirming the interim protection order dated 06.10.2021 and directing the Station House Officer to maintain law and order in the area and prevent any breach of peace by any party in future.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Headload Workers Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that the seafood of the goods and the delicate nature of the items require trained personnel for loading/unloading and that he should be permitted to use his own permanent employees for this purpose. He cites prior guidance in A. Balakrishnan’s case that such articles must be handled only by trained personnel and seeks protection against obstruction by unions, urging the court to sustain his right to employ his own workers as a matter of safety and business efficiency; he also notes that an earlier petition (WP(C) No. 33283 of 2018) was withdrawn with liberty to pursue remedies under the Kerala Headload Workers Act.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader and respondents argued that the relevant area is governed by a Scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act; while the Welfare Board maintains that the Act may apply, they acknowledged that, where articles are delicate, the petitioner may be entitled to employ his own workers as per the declarations in Balakrishnan’s case. They highlighted that interim protection had been provided and that there have been no untoward incidents; overall, they urged adherence to statutory schemes and caution in overriding them without adequate basis.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
A. Balakrishnan v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police	WP(C) No. 28462 of 2020	Positive	The court relies on Balakrishnan’s case to uphold that delicate electrical goods require trained personnel, supporting the petitioner’s claim to employ his own permanent staff for loading/unloading.
WP(C) No. 33283 of 2018	WP(C) No. 33283 of 2018	Mentioned Only	Referenced as a prior petition where the petitioner withdrew reliance on the Welfare Board’s contention; no substantive substantive ruling is cited in the present decision.

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 P. J. Joseph 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 21177 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **P.J. JOSEPH AGED 40 YEARS SON OF K.J.JOSEPH, PEEDIKAYIL, THAMARAKKULAM, KOLLAM-691001.** ## **BY ADV P.B.SAHASRANAMAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691001.** - **3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM-691001.** - **4 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691013.** - **5 KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD - KHWWB REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT COMMITTEE, IIND FLOOR, USHUS BUILDING, NEAR STONE BRIDGE, CHAMAKKADA, KOLLAM691001.** - **6 BHARATHIYA MASDOOR SANGH(BMS), BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691001, REPRESENTD BY ITS CONVENOR.** - **7 CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS (CITU), BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR.** - **8 INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS(INTUC), BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR.** **WP(C) NO. 21177 OF 2021** **2** **BY ADV K.SIJU SRI.E C.BINEESH - GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 21177 OF 2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is stated to be running an electrical and electronic shop in the name of “Jose Electricals”,has approached this Court alleging that respondents 6 to 8 Unions and their men and associates are obstructing him and his employees, while they are engaged in loading and unloading activities in his shop. 2. The petitioner asserts that the articles dealt with by him in his establishment are sophisticated electrical and electronic goods like LED Panel, LED Tube Lights Mini Circuit breaker, Electronic Switches, Water Heater, Air Conditioners, Air Coolers, Mixers, Electronic Fan, Electrical fittings, Lamp Shades, Table Lamps etc, which are delicate and requiring trained hands in its loading and unloading activities. He explains that when, in **WP(C) NO. 21177 OF 2021** **4** the past, some of the articles were carelessly handled by the headload workers, he had suffered huge loss, as is evident from Exts.P1 and P2 series of photographs. He says that, however, when respondents 6 to 7 unions and their men still insisted that he engage only them, he was constrained to approach the 2[nd] respondent – Station House Officer, through Ext.P4, seeking protection; but that since no action was taken thereon, he has been constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition. 3. Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman – learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded that, on an earlier occasion when his client approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.33283/2018, the Welfare Board took a contention that the area in question is covered by a Scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and therefore, that his client withdrew the same, with liberty to **WP(C) NO. 21177 OF 2021** **5** invoke his other remedies. He, however, submitted that since the articles involved are delicate electrical and electronic articles, which have already been declared by this Court in _A.Balakrishnan vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police_ (WP(C)No.28462 of 2020 and connected cases) to be incapable of being handled except by trained and expert employees, his client is entitled to use his own permanent employees for its loading and unloading activities. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be allowed. 4. Sri.E.C.Bineesh – learned Government Pleader, submitted that in terms of the interim order of this Court, dated 06.10.2021, the petitioner and his employees have been adequately and effectively protected and that there have been no untoward incidents thereafter. 5. Sri.Siju Kamalasanan – learned Standing **WP(C) NO. 21177 OF 2021** **6** Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent - Board, affirmed that the area where the petitioner is carrying on his business is covered by a Scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act; but, to a pointed question from this Court, he submitted that if the articles are delicate then certainly the petitioner may be entitled to use his own workers in terms of the declarations of this Court in _A.Balakrishnan's case_ (supra). 6. I notice from the files that summons issued from this Court to respondents 6 to 8 have been validly served, but that they have not chosen to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in answer to the various allegations and assertions of the petitioner. In the afore circumstances and taking into account the petitioner’s contention that the articles dealt with in his establishment are **WP(C) NO. 21177 OF 2021** **7** delicate and sophisticated, I order this writ petition and confirm the interim order dated 06.10.2021; with a consequential direction to the 2[nd] respondent – Station House Officer, to act as per its terms and to ensure that law and order is always maintained in the area where the petitioner is carrying on his business, without any breach of peace being allowed by anyone, including the party respondents or their men or associates in future. ## **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** **SAS/18/11/2021** **WP(C) NO. 21177 OF 2021** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21177/2021** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LAMPSHADES, LED LIGHTS, METAL SWITCH BOXES, ETC.IN THE DAMAGED CONDITION. Exhibit P2 SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE WORKERS OF THE PETITIONER FIRM, WHO ARE ENGAGED IN HANDLING THE ELECTRICAL GOODS. Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN W.P(C)NO.33283 OF 2018, DATED 30.11.2018 Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THIS PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT,DATED 22-09-2021, ALONG WITH RECEIPT. Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THIS PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT,DATED 27.09.2021.**