Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit petition disposed of with directions for p...

Pee Vee Enterprises v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 22422 of 2013 (C)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • S. Siri Jagan
  • K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date
2013-11-15
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed of with directions to respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner, her employees, and her property for the smooth functioning of the business, free from interference by respondents 4 and 5 or any under them. The court noted that the petitioner may, if magnanimous, employ members of respondents 4 and 5 if needed, but this does not confer a right to those respondents to disturb the petitioner’s business. The decision clarifies that mere notification is not sufficient without local implementation and that the petitioner is not bound to employ union workers unless the local machinery is in place.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of with directions for police protection and clarification on scope of scheme implementation; petitioner allowed to operate with her own workers unless magnanimously choosing otherwise; no right granted to interfere by unions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Pee Vee Enterprises

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • The Sub Inspector of Police, Hemambika Nagar Police Station, Palakkad District
  • The Commissioner of Police, Palakkad District
  • Swaminathan
  • Abdul Razak
  • Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M.B. Prajith
  • • K.K. Premalal

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Government Pleader Mohammed Shah
  • • Sri.T.B.Hood
  • • Smt.M.Ishta
  • • Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash

Case Synopsis & Summary

Pee Vee Enterprises, a business operator in Palakkad district, seeks police protection and a writ of mandamus to ensure uninterrupted loading/unloading operations. Respondents 4 and 5, Swaminathan and Abdul Razak (representatives of unions), obstruct the petitioner’s business, insisting that headload work be performed through union workers. The Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board’s scheme, regulated to cover the headload workers, had been extended to Palakkad district by Ext.R4(a), but the scheme’s local applicability and operative machinery remained unresolved in Vallikode area of Pudupariyaram Panchayat. The petitioner contends that the scheme has not been implemented locally, and police have failed to provide protection. Respondents counter that the notification extends the scheme to the entire district; the petitioner’s claim of non-implementation is contested, and the board confirms some areas have not yet implemented the scheme, creating a conflict between formal notification and local operationalization. The court cites Nujumudeen.M. v. City Police Commissioner, Kollam, holding that mere notification is insufficient without local implementation and a registered workers’ committee. It directs respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner, her employees, and property for smooth business operation, while noting the petitioner may employ union workers if she chooses, without granting rights to disturbances by respondents 4 and 5.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Mere notification of a welfare scheme is not sufficient to implement it in a locality; active implementation and local machinery are required.
  • Implementation of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Scheme requires a local committee and registered workers for effective operation, failing which the scheme cannot bind the petitioner.
  • A court may direct police protection in cases of interference with lawful business pending proper implementation of welfare schemes.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus and police protection to safeguard life, property, and smooth functioning of her business. She argued that although Ext.R4(a) extended the scheme to Palakkad district, the Vallikode area of Pudupariyaram Panchayat had not been brought under the scheme, hence she could operate with her own workers. Police protection was requested due to interference by respondents 4 and 5. The petitioner maintained that mere notification does not bind her to the scheme until local implementation and a local committee with registered workers are in place.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contended that the notification Ext.R4(a) extends the scheme to the entire Palakkad district and that local implementation is required for operative effect. They asserted the board’s position that certain areas are not yet included in the scheme, as per communications from the board. They urged that the petitioner need not be compelled to hire union workers and could operate with her own workers, while ensuring law and order with police protection. They emphasized the necessity of local committees and registration for effective scheme operation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Nujumudeen.M. v. City Police Commissioner, Kollam2011 (3) KHC 96PositiveCited with approval to emphasize that mere notification of the scheme is insufficient without local implementation and a local committee with registered workers; supports the court’s approach to require concrete local action before binding the petitioner to the scheme.

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 Pee Vee Enterprises 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 S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/24TH KARTHIKA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 22422 of 2013 (C)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **--------------------** **PEE VEE ENTERPRISES 4/860, KAMALA COMPLEX, POOCHIRA PUDUPARIYARAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR HASEENA K., AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.P.V ANWAR, KUTTANKAVIL HOUSE, PAZHAYANGADY KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN CODE - 673 638.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.B.PRAJITH SRI.K.K.PREMALAL** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN CODE - 695 001.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION,** **PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE -678 001.** ## **3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,** ## **PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE -678 001.** ## **4. SWAMINATHAN** **CITU HEAD LOAD WORK, CHURATHEMUKK UNIT PALAKKAL PARAMBU VALLIKKAD, PIN CODE- 678 594** ## **5. ABDUL RAZAK,** - **INTUC HEAD LOAD WORK, VALIYAKKATTU PARAMBU UNIT VALLIKKAD, PIN CODE 678 594.** **...2/-** **WP(C).No. 22422 of 2013 (C) -2-** ***ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED** ## ***6. KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD** **REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN OF THE LOCAL COMMITTEE PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ***IS IMPLEADED SUOMOTU VIDE ORDER DTD. 6.11.13 IN WP(C).22422/2013.** **R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED SHAH** **R4 BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.HOOD** **SMT.M.ISHA R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR ADDL R6 BY ADV. SRI.C.S. AJITH PRAKASH, SC, KHWWB** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...3/-** **WP(C).No. 22422 of 2013 (C) -----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** **------------------------------------------** - **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHAYATH LICENSE ISSUED BY THE PUTHUPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER'S SHOP.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE VAT REGISTRATION.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 01-04-2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01-04-2013 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26-08-2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 29-08-2013 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-9-2013 ISSUED BY CHAIRPERSON OF IN REPLY THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD PALAKKAD AFFIDAVIT DISTRICT COMMITTEE.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **--------------------------------------------** - **EXT.R4(a) COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 12.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA EXTENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO THE ENTIRE AREA OF PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **EXT.R4(b) COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.** --------------------------------------------------------------WP(C) No.22422 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------Dated this, the 15[th] day of November 2013 ## Judgment ## Siri Jagan, J. The petitioner is running a business, where some loading and unloading work is also done as part of the business. Respondents 4 and 5 are obstructing the functioning of the establishment, demanding headload works being done at the petitioner's godown in Pudupariyaram panchayat, where, according to the petitioner, the Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation and Welfare) Scheme has not yet been made applicable for themselves. The petitioner wants to get the loading and unloading work done by employing her own workers. Despite request for police assistance, none is forthcoming, is the complaint of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks the following relief : “i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and his employees, protection to the petitioner's WPC 22422/13 2 properties and smooth functioning of the petitioner's business.” 2. The 4[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner cannot take the stand that the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation and Welfare) Scheme has not yet been made applicable to Pudupariyaram panchayat in view of Ext.R4(a) notification issued by the Government, extending the provisions of the scheme to the entire area of Palakkad district. The 5[th] respondent also takes the same stand. 3. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, producing Ext.P6 reply from the Chairperson of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board to the effect that although a notification has been issued, the scheme has not been implemented in the Vallikode area of Pudupariyaram panchayat. This is confirmed by the counsel for the 6[th] respondent Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board as well. 4. We have considered the rival contentions in detail. WPC 22422/13 3 5. A Division Bench of this Court has, in **Nujumudeen.M. v. City Police Commissioner, Kollam** (2011 (3) KHC 96), held that mere notification of the scheme is not sufficient to implement the scheme in a particular area and functional operation is also necessary, after which only, the scheme can be effectively implemented. We are also of the opinion that without a local committee being put in place in the locality with registered workers attached to it, the scheme cannot be effectively implemented. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner is now bound by the scheme. That being so, the petitioner is not bound to employ the members of respondents 4 and 5 unions for getting the loading and unloading work done in her establishment. As such, it is perfectly open to the petitioner as of now, to get the loading and unloading work done in her establishment through the workers of her choice. Accordingly, there would be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate police protection to WPC 22422/13 4 the life of the petitioner, their employees, to the petitioner's properties and for the smooth functioning of the petitioner's business without any interference from respondents 4 and 5 or anybody claiming under them. However, it would be open to the petitioner, if she is magnanimous enough to do so, to employ any members of respondents 4 and 5, if their services are required to get the loading and unloading work done in their establishment. But, this observation will not give any right whatsoever to respondents 4 and 5 or anybody claiming under them and in the name of this observation, they shall not be permitted to make any disturbances for the loading and unloading work of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ## **S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE** **K.RAMAKRISHNAN,JUDGE** sta WPC 22422/13 5 WPC 22422/13 6