Sruthi Koova v. State of Kerala and others

W.P.(C).Nos.7534/22 1 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 7534 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** SRUTHI KOOVA AGED 32 YEARS W/O MOHANLAL PROPRIETRIX, SREE PORKKALI STEELS MADAYI CHINACLAY ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT 670358 PIN - 670358 BY ADV UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT , GOVT. SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 PIN - 695001 2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF O/O DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KANNUR 670002, PIN - 670002 3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION PAZHAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT 670303, PIN - 670303 W.P.(C).Nos.7534/22 2 4 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD KANNUR DISTRICT COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN FOOD GRAINS BHAVAN BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, RAJEEV GANDHI ROAD, JS POUL JUNCTION KANNUR 670001, PIN - 670001 5 I. V SIVARAMAN PRESIDENT HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION(CITU) CITU AREA COMMITTEE OFFICE, PAZHAYANGADI P.O KANNUR 670303 PIN - 670303 6 V.V RAMACHANDRAN SECRETARY HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION(CITU) CITU AREA COMMITTEE OFFICE, PAZHAYANGADI P.O KANNUR 670303 PIN - 670303 7 ALIYAS SURABHI QUARTES SECRETARY-PAZHAYANGADI UNIT HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION(CITU) CITU AREA COMMITTEE OFFICE, PAZHAYANGADI P.O KANNUR 670303 PIN - 670303 8 SIDDIQUE PRESIDENT- PAZHAYANGADI UNIT HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION(CITU) CITU AREA COMMITTEE OFFICE, PAZHAYANGADI P.O KANNUR 670303 PIN - 670303 9 BIJU S/O GOVINDAN CHENGAL WEST, NEAR KUNDATHUMKAVU PAZHAYANGADI P.O 670303 PIN - 670303 W.P.(C).Nos.7534/22 3 10 RAMESAN S/O GOPALAN CHENGAL , NEAR KUNDATHUM KAVU PAZHAYANGADI P.O 670303 PIN - 670303 11 RATHEESAN S/O PAITHALEN RAVI VELLACHAL P.O, VENGARA KANNUR 670622 PIN - 670622 12 RIYAS S/O MOIDEEN NEAR MANDUR GRAMEEN VAYANASALA MANDUR P.O 670501 PIN - 670501 13 ADDL. R13. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, SP OFFICE ROAD, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR 670002. 14 ADDL. R14. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER 3RD CIRCLE, DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, SP OFFICE ROAD, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR- 670002 IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R13 AND R14 AS PER ORDER DATED 01.06.2022 IN I.A.4/2022 IN WP(C) 7534/2022. BY ADVS. SC, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD - KHWWB I.V.PRAMOD THOMAS ABRAHAM ## **OTHER PRESENT:** T.K.SHAJAHAN-SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.07.2022, THE COURT ON 26.07.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).Nos.7534/22 4 ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =** ## **W.P.(C).No.7534 of 2022** ## **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2022 JUDGMENT** ## 1.This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondent to remove the obstruction caused by the respondent Nos.5 to 12 and their henchmen and direct to provide adequate protection to the petitioner and her employees from the respondents No 5 to 12 and their henchman, to run the shop smoothly. ii) To declare that the respondents No.5 to 12 or men under them has no authority to interfere and obstruct loading and and loading work in the shop owned by the petitioner through the attached head load workers having Rule 26A card” 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent. Though respondents 6 to 12 have been served with notice there is no appearance for the said respondents. W.P.(C).Nos.7534/22 5 3.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a lady entrepreneur engaged in the business of retail sale of iron pipes and sheets under the name “Sri. Porkkali Steels”. It is contended that she started a shop at Madayi China Clay Road during December, 2021, after obtaining all required permissions. She required only minimum employees for loading and unloading and she has three attached headload workers having Rule 26A cards. However, respondents 5 to 12 are obstructing the loading and unloading work and manhandling the attached workers, it is contended. It is submitted that respondents 5 to 12 are sitting in front of the shop and not permitting customers to enter the shop. Though complaints were submitted, no action has been taken thereon. - 4.This Court by order dated 8.3.2022 had directed that in case of threat or obstruction by the party respondents, the petitioner shall inform the 3[rd] respondent who shall take proper steps to see that law and order is maintained. It is contended that even thereafter, the criminal obstruction and W.P.(C).Nos.7534/22 6 intimidation have been going on. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exhibits P2 to P4 are identity cards of the attached workers of the petitioner and that the petitioner is entitled to carry out the loading and unloading activities in her establishment at Madayi utilising the services of the registered head load workers. 5. Relying on the decisions of this Court in **Pareeeth v. Sub Inspector of Police** [2003 KHC 380], **Eastern Condiments (P) Ltd. v.Sub Inspector of Police** [2012 KHC 2597] and **Sureshkumar v. District Labour Officer** [ 2021(2) KLT 313 (FB) and **K.K.Issac and Company and another v. District Police Chief, Aluva and others** [2020(2) KHC 190], it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the the petitioner is entitled to carry out the loading and unloading activities with her permanent workers having registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. 6.A statement has been placed on record by the 4[th] respondent contending that the petitioner's permanent workers are specifically registered for loading and unloading activities in W.P.(C).Nos.7534/22 7 the petitioner's establishment situated in Cheemeni which is in Kasaragod. It is submitted that the petitioner seeks police protection in respect of loading and unloading activities in a completely different establishment, that is, Sri.Porkkali Steels, Madayi which is a separate and distinct establishment and that the petitioner, admittedly, does not have any permanent workers, who have registration under Rule 26A or identity cards issued under Clause 6A of the Scheme for the establishment in question and that therefore the petitioner is duty bound to engage the pool workers, who are so registered. It is contended that the premises where the petitioner's establishment is located is admittedly a Scheme Covered Area and that the petitioner's contention cannot be accepted. 7.I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. The decision of this Court in **Pareeeth v. Sub Inspector of Police** [2003 KHC 380] dealt with the case where the establishment itself was shifted to a new premises and the employer contended that the loading and unloading was W.P.(C).Nos.7534/22 8 being carry out by his permanent registered workers. It was in the above circumstances that it was held that the attached registered headload workers cannot be denied employment merely by reason of the employer shifting his establishment to a new premises and that such workers would not require any fresh registration. 8.In **Eastern Condiments (P) Ltd. v. Sub Inspector of Police** [2012 KHC 2597], the question was whether the employees who were engaged by the establishment for the loading and unloading work in connection with the establishment could be obstructed by pool workers on the ground that they did not have a registration to work in the area where loading and unloading activity was carried out. This Court held that only because the loading and unloading activity was being carried out in a different area, the employees of the establishment who have due registration cannot be prevented from doing the activity because the activity was being done on behalf of the establishment by its permanent registered workers. W.P.(C).Nos.7534/22 9 9.In **K.K.Issac and Company and another v. District Police Chief, Aluva and others** [2020(2) KHC 190] the question was whether an employer who is having more than one establishment is required to register the headload workers used in the establishments in all the places where such branches or establishments are operated. This Court, after considering the contentions held as follows:- “ 6.As per S.3(j) _(sic)_ of the Kerala headload Workers Act, an "establishment" means, an establishment specified in the Schedule and includes the precincts thereof. Therefore, an establishment cannot be understood to mean within the narrow geographical location. The establishment has to be understood based on a systematic activity being carried out and operated by an entity or a person within the geographical area or beyond. If an activity of the establishment extends beyond a location where it is registered, that does not mean that the establishment cannot engage its own permanent employees for loading and unloading. The registration of headload workers is not vis - a - vis location but vis - a - vis establishment. Therefore, if the permanent headload workers are engaged by the establishment for its activities, no one can object to such engagement.” Relying on Rule 27 and paragraph 7 of Scheme, it was held W.P.(C).Nos.7534/22 10 that an establishment which is having permanent employees is bound to maintain the register of such employees wherever they are engaged. The establishment is also bound to intimate the Assistant Labour Officer concerned in regard to the engagement of such headload workers, if the Assistant Labour Officer is not the original authority that granted the registration. The Assistant Labour Officer is bound to verify the identity of the person engaged by every employer. 10.However, in the instant case, the contention of the Board and the contesting party respondents is that the establishment itself is a completely separate and distinct establishment which is newly established. The petitioner has no case that there is any cessation of business in the earlier establishment at Cheemeni in Kasaragod district. The petitioner has started a new establishment and is seeking to carry out the activities therein. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the respondents requires a consideration. Since the question whether the establishment is a separate and distinct W.P.(C).Nos.7534/22 11 establishment is in dispute, I am of the opinion that the issue is a dispute as contemplated under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. The parties may approach the conciliation officer for resolution of the dispute under Section 21. However, till such time as the dispute is resolved and the matter is settled, the party respondents shall not create law and order situations or attack the workers of the petitioner in any manner. In case of any illegal obstruction or attack, the petitioner may inform the Station House Officer, who shall afford protection to the life of the petitioner and his registered workers. Further action shall be subject to the order to be passed by the competent authority under Section 21 of the Act. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj W.P.(C).Nos.7534/22 12 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7534/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENSE DATED 14.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF MADAYI GRAMA PANCHAYATH - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 26A IDENTITY CARD OF T V RAMACHANDRAN - Exhibit P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 26A IDENTITY CARD OF AMARJEET KUMAR - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 26A IDENTITY CARD OF RAMUKUMAR - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER ON 22.02.2022 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN TO THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, 3RD CIRCLE, KANNUR ON 22.2.2022 - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE SITUATION IN THE SHOP Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1.2.2022 WITH RECEIPT True copy PS to Judge